it isn't entirely clear that a kind of unification of principles and goals would even be all that desirable to begin with. — ChatteringMonkey

All this has been a very good discussion. I appreciate your views --they resemble the sorts of ideas I entertained when I was much younger. I guess I have gotten more reductionist over time. — BC

Over time, however, my mindset has become more holistic, which makes it easier for me to try to understand both the whole and its parts.

Notes:
• I think that awe and beauty are two different concepts. Awe is an emotion, whereas beauty is a property that, in my view, emerges as a fundamental outcome of the Earth system.
• I also think we must distinguish between the mechanisms that drive the evolution of the system, and the trends that ultimately emerge. For example, natural selection is a mechanism, while on of its consequences is that intelligence eventually arises.

I will briefly present three additional trends which, in my view, indicate the direction in which the Earth system is moving, trends that humans must accept and “use” if we want stability and well-being.
Since humans have existed for only 0.004% of the Earth’s 4.5 billion years of life, we are not significant enough to generate any trend ourselves; rather, we are the result of them.

Complexity

It is obvious that the system has been generating increasing complexity, and we are already beginning to glimpse what future complexity may look like. Humans must learn how to manage it. Donald Trump is a good example of a person who has not assimilated complexity and therefore attempts to manage a highly complex world using simplistic procedures.

Socialization

Two trends of our system, (a) the propensity to generate life and (b) diversity, lead to a large increase in population, ethnicities, beliefs, and ways of thinking. Even if we wanted to, we cannot prevent either of these trends.
In living beings with low complexity, the information needed to survive is contained in their genes. As evolution produces increasingly complex beings, genetic information alone is no longer sufficient for survival. Animals acquire additional knowledge by socializing with other members of their species. Humans also acquire knowledge through socialization, although this includes other mechanisms such as education and the media.
Once again, we encounter underlying trends that will not reverse, that we cannot modify, but that we can use intelligently by adapting them to the time in which we live.

Mutual dependence

In primitive tribes, each adult individual was almost self-sufficient and could live without depending on others. As the Earth system generates ever greater complexity, and since this complexity can only be managed through greater specialization, we find that today we are completely dependent on one another.

To assess the level of this dependence, I suggest you try to estimate how many people were required for you to be able to do what you are doing right now. Do not forget educators, scientists, authors, healthcare workers, all kinds of service providers, and those involved in extracting the raw materials that make up the products we use. How many thousands of anonymous people have been, and still are, necessary for me to live?

Personally, it seems to me that almost everything makes sense when we move away from the here and now. As humans, we are insignificant within the Earth system to which we belong and which we understand well (the universe is an even higher-level system, but one that remains largely unknown). Systems experts tell us that to understand a system, we must determine how it behaves and how it evolves. Once we have identified how the Earth system appears to behave (generates life, diversity, beauty, balance, freedom, intelligence, complexity, mutual dependence, etc.) it makes no sense for humans (given our minimal relevance) to attempt to act against it. We should do exactly the opposite: accept the system in which we live and use our capacities and freedom to move forward in the same direction.

In the next post, I will propose how the final trend, consciousness (understood as the capacity to perceive who we are and where we are) seems to come into play.

Yes, I agree: “civilization (such as it is)” is a better term.

I will argue the objections and try to convince you.

“Beauty”

We have been told that beauty is a subjective concept. Let us ask ourselves:

A/ Is everything in nature, untouched by human intervention, beautiful? I believe so.

B/ Can we identify any element of nature, untouched by humans, that is not beautiful (the firmament, animals, plants, humans, bacteria, etc.)? In my opinion, everything is beautiful, with a few exceptions related to degenerative processes: disease, aging, and decay… (the problem of evil in the world, which is another topic).

C/ What happens after some time has passed since humans have destroyed beauty, through deforestation, pollution of rivers and seas, or the accumulation of waste? Beauty reappears, and we are unable to prevent it.

Beauty may be subjective, but it is extremely well adapted to human beings. It produces pleasure, serenity, and a sense of integration with nature. It is a powerful tendency of the system. Can we think of any way to stop it?

“Freedom”

I propose that we focus on observable facts.

At the beginning, on Earth, freedom did not exist: a rock is not free. Protozoa, insects, birds, mammals, Homo sapiens, modern humans. I cannot say exactly where freedom begins, but it is evident that the system generates beings increasingly capable of exercising freedom. It is also evident that our genes have fostered in us a strong desire to be free.

I like a quote by Viktor Frankl about freedom:
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms, to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
Man’s Search for Meaning

The next question is: why, in practice, is most of the humanity unable to exercise its freedom? In my opinion, there are two main causes.

A/ many of those who hold power appropriate the freedom of those who do not. Why are Iranians not free? And why do migrants living in Minneapolis also feel they are not free? B/ humanity does not follow the tendencies of the Earth system, such as balance (socioeconomic, cultural, etc.), acceptance of diversity, or respect for life; consequently freedom can't expand.

In other words, at the beginning there was no freedom, and the system has gradually “injected it” in the living beings. This tendency is also so strong that we cannot stop it. We all want to exercise our freedom, and we do not want power to prevent it. The freedom that the system has embodied in humans is so radical that we can even act against the system itself destroying lives and beauty or preventing others from enjoying freedom.

“Intelligence”

The system has progressively generated intelligence. At the beginning it did not exist, but science shows us that living beings have gradually acquired different degrees of intelligence, and we also know that in humans it reaches its highest concentration.

Here an interesting issue arises, one that invites reflection: the system has endowed us with intelligence, but intelligence without information and knowledge is ineffective. Information and knowledge have not been produced by the system; they are products generated by humans. If those of us who possess them prevent access to those who do not (through education and culture), we prevent other intelligences from reaching their full potential.

Something similar happens with freedom: if those who hold power steal freedom from others, the latter cannot unfold the attributes that the system has generated in them.

Everything seems to indicate that humans, as part of the system, must play our role in facilitating the rapid and effective materialization of these tendencies. It is up to us.

Next Monday, I will continue explaining my view of the remaining tendencies of the System Earth

I think we are saying similar things, and they are not contradictory.

We do not know how long our civilization may last, but it seems desirable that, for as long as it does, we pursue the following goals: A) that it does not end abruptly (for example, through a nuclear war or catastrophic climate overheating), and B) that life is not a continuous source of suffering for millions of people.

If we accept both goals as desirable, the next question is: what should we do to achieve them?

As you have seen, my proposal is that our behaviour should take as a reference certain higher-level trends that transcend humanity itself, trends that no one has decided upon, and which the Earth system is demonstrably following. These trends are clear, easy to identify, and have many practical consequences that we can discuss in detail later. For now, I will simply list them to clarify what I mean: A propensity for life; diversity; fragile and ephemeral life; beauty; balance; freedom; intelligence; socialization; mutual dependence; complexity; and consciousness
.
The essential point is that our actions as humans should not confront the trends of the Earth system. On the contrary, we should assimilate and promote them. By doing so, we would achieve greater stability and well-being.

These principles are compatible with most human activities, as well as with competition among us, debate, and the defence of legitimate viewpoints. However, they are not compatible, among other things, with war, dictatorships, extreme social differences, inequality, systemic imbalances, restrictions on education, unhealthy habitats that prevent a dignified life, and so on.

What is required is to accept a frame of reference that has not been imposed by anyone but is instead defined by simple observation of the evolution of the Earth system. We can affect, partially and temporarily, the evolution of our planet, but we cannot alter its long-term trajectory.

I do not believe that accepting these principles should be seen as a sacrifice. On the contrary, it would increase our stability and could become a requirement of good governance for those in power, in the sense that it is not legitimate to make decisions that oppose the interests of those of us who inhabit the Earth and of those who will come after us.

Do you have thoughts about the end of our species? I always thought it was kind of un-face-able, but do you feel like the possibility can be faced, and accepted? — frank

Humanity will eventually disappear. Our Sun, like many other stars, will exhaust its hydrogen fuel, then expand and engulf part of the Solar System. Fortunately, this is expected to occur in about five billion years.
However, we could disappear much earlier if we persist in imposing our own criteria while ignoring the evolutionary trends of the Earth system, which has—fortunately—endowed us with consciousness: the ability to understand ourselves, our place in the world, and the needs of others. From this point onward, it is up to us, exercising our freedom, to decide what attitude we choose to adopt.

I like to emphasize that we are part of a continuum of life which has been created over a long period of time. Our evolutionary history is why "we are what we are" and every other species is what it is as well. — BC

Of course, our history explains what we are. However, I insist that it is important not to be mistaken when defining what we are. In the same way that it is true that an iPhone is made up of metals and plastics but is not only that—it is also a communications hub, a data bank, and more—we too are much more than an evolved animal. We possess enormous capabilities that allow us to determine what kind of world we want and, if we choose, how to adapt it to the Earth system of which we are a part.

Because our immediate concerns take precedence over more distant concerns (even if the consequences of ignoring ecology are grave). It's not that we are inherently evil, stupid, or insane. We simply are wired to prioritize the immediate over the distant when the immediate stakes are raised. — BC

Although modern life seems to push us toward short-term decision-making, our brains are not limited to the short term. On the contrary, they can imagine long-term futures, reconciling them with collective interests, and devising ways to act accordingly. The real problem of the 21st century is not cognitive limitation but the absence of solid reference points to guide behaviour, and the lack of convincing arguments to defend them.

We see this clearly when political leaders justify aggression in the name of “national integrity.” How can we argue that the well-being of citizens is a higher-order value than inherited notions of national sovereignty? Similarly, are fake news merely a technological pastime, or an attack on humanity itself? The Earth system required 4.5 billion years to generate intelligence, and fake news represent a serious assault on that achievement: instead of fostering intelligence, as education does, they deliberately undermine it.

Since there are many different smaller systems, based on different laws, some contradicting each other etc it seems implausible that a larger system could be intelligible as a system. — jkop

If we cannot clearly resolve the contradictions between systems of equal rank, we must try to understand how the higher-order system works. This is not always easy, but it is the correct path. Consider the human body: even its most basic systems present contradictions. Our digestive system encourages us to consume foods (proteins and fats) that are harmful to the circulatory system (cholesterol), and our nervous system, when under stress, predisposes us to eat more. To understand what is really happening, we must understand how the body and mind function as a whole and analyse their overall behaviour.

If we understand how the Earth system works, we will have a set of criteria that should serve as a framework within which lower-order systems ought to function and relate to one another: the political system, individual and collective freedoms, ecological balance, education and the dissemination of knowledge, economic development, and so on.

You have raised several interesting issues that I would like to comment on.

As products of the earth system, we are what we are — BC

But who are we? We are not merely evolved animals that behave according to instinct, that is, beings that produce similar reactions in response to similar stimuli. We possess, at least, three qualitative differences:intelligence (which enables us to evaluate and choose),conscience (awareness of ourselves, of our situation in the world, and of our condition as members of humanity), and freedom to act (provided that those in power do not steal it). The Earth system has endowed us with powerful tools to achieve high levels of human cooperation and personal well-being. It is up to us to decide whether we want to improve humanity.

The world at universal peace and contentment would require that we were in agreement about how to live good lives — BC

I fully agree with your opinion, because this is a crucial issue. Let me highlight a few ideas. It seems to me that, among most humans, there are far more points of agreement than of disagreement. Unfortunately, rogue governments do not help to achieve broad consensus, as they tend to focus on their own interests rather than those of their citizens. When objectives are clear, we frequently see populations align behind them and offer their support.

Although I cannot foresee what the outcome may be, I am convinced, as you suggest, that the first step is to identify our collective objectives. My proposal is that we must understand how the Earth system behaves, explain it clearly, and adapt our actions accordingly.

Let me describe a couple of trends (among many) within the Earth system.

Life propensity and diversity. There is no doubt that both are real and persistent features of the system. At the beginning, our planet was a ball of fire; today, its surface is covered by an uncountable number of living beings. Moreover, throughout its history, Earth has experienced five mass-extinction events, during which approximately 75–95% of all species disappeared. In every case, life and diversity eventually recovered.

Given that the Earth system behaves in this way, do we truly believe that we can achieve stability and well-being by killing people and destroying habitats rather than preserving them; by allowing those with different skin colours to starve; or by imprisoning those who think differently? Do we really think that these ideas (simple to explain and justify) cannot be understood and supported by large segments of humanity?

And so as the evolutionary account is only going to explain how we have acquired the beliefs - and acquired the beliefs without us having to posit the existence of what they are about - it is going to debunk those beliefs. — Clearbury

You know, because I’ve said it a few times, that I’m concerned about the direction the world is heading, and I try to find ideas and methods that could help improve humanity.

Can we extract a practical conclusion from your reasoning for humanity, one that can be easily understood by people? What is the main idea that could help people?

@Nils Loc

I think the problem should be resolved within the following framework of GTE:

• Propensity for Life: Life of any kind, in principle, must be respected. However, this is not an absolute statement, in the sense that certain animals (humans included) sacrifice other animals to feed themselves. Although this has nothing to do with beetles, I find it important to emphasize that higher animals (those that show traces of intelligence) do not kill their peers, and if there are exceptions, they occur because they lack the consciousness to perceive the suffering of others. Killing their own kind in large numbers is something only humans do.

• Balance: Humans must restore lost balances, and the case of the beetles is a local imbalance. I do not know if it stems from climate change, which is an imbalance caused by humans and one that we must correct. Let us not forget socio-economic imbalances, which are far more serious than those involving insects.

• Intelligence allows us to analyse and choose among different solutions, and consciousness enables us to properly perceive the consequences that might arise for other animals or humans.

• Finally, it is freedom that allows us to choose the solution than better fits GTE. If most of our decisions align with the GTE, we will create a better world; otherwise, we may end up destroying ourselves.

I believe that GTE provide us with criteria that guide our decisions. Intelligence and consciousness allow us to seek them out and understand their limits. Often, there are no perfect solutions.

Agreed: Believing in something does not determine that it is true.

It seems important to me to distinguish between two types of truth. The truth about the physical and natural world is determined by science, which also includes disciplines like sociology, economics, psychology, etc. In matters that are not empirically observable, it is philosophy that seeks to find the truth, primarily through reasoning and coherence.

Agreed: A belief is sufficient to explain a behaviour
— Clearbury

Ethical principles are normative — Clearbury

I understand that some are, when incorporated into laws, regulations, or codes, while others are not, as they are general guidelines whose application depends on interpretation and consensus.

I will now attempt to align our positions:

We must consider the timescale in which we are operating. When I discuss the great trends of evolution (GTE), I refer to 4.6 billion years. Ethical principles (which do not exist without consciousness) date back, at most, 200,000 years, and very likely less than 50,000 years.

GTE are not beliefs, but realities established by science. These trends affect us and will not change soon. At this point, ethical principles do not come into play.

It is only in the last phase of evolution (less than 0.001% of the elapsed time) that intelligence and consciousness give rise to the formulation of ethical principles. These principles aim to define universal criteria to facilitate human coexistence. Your comments, some of which I agree with, refer to this short period of time.

In the OP’s thesis, I proposed that evolution contained ethical principles. Throughout the debate, I acknowledge that a direct relationship cannot be established between evolutionary trends and ethical principles. I reformulate the proposal as follows:

• Humans must respect and adapt to GTE, because they are powerful, they condition us, we cannot change them, and they will not change.
• It seems absurd for ethical principles to contradict evolutionary trends, that is, to carry within them the seeds of conflict with nature and its tendencies.
• Most ethical principles are guidelines; very few are normative.
• Interpretation is individual. It is up to us whether humanity progresses peacefully or destroys itself.

All this forms a paradigm that, in my view, helps explain what is happening in humanity:

1. Throughout history, there have been multiple attempts to define universal ethical principles. From philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, and Kant to more recent approaches such as Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, many arrive at similar conclusions, albeit expressed in different words and perspectives. Likewise, organizations like the UN, in its Declaration of Human Rights or principles of sustainability, define similar values.

2. Science has shown that Earth has followed specific GTE, such as the propensity for life, coexistence in diversity, mutual dependence, and freedom. These trends, while subject to some volatility, point in a direction that ethical principles also seek: facilitating coexistence and human development. It is difficult to imagine ethical principles that directly oppose GTE without endangering our survival. It’s easier to publicly explain and propose a behaviour starting from GTE than from philosophers’ theories.

3. Until the emergence of free, intelligent humans (some with power), no one openly challenged these trends. However, certain human behaviours’ (such as starting wars, resisting diversity, or fostering political confrontation) interfere with these trends, hindering their consolidation and putting humanity's peaceful progress at risk. In my opinion, this is the core of the problem.

4. Within this framework, human freedom fits perfectly. It is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it allows for progress and the creation of ethical principles; on the other, it can lead to destruction if we choose to act against GTE and universal ethical principles.

Respecting the great trends of evolution and formulating ethical principles aligned with them constitute a useful paradigm for interpreting humanity’s current challenges. However, the key lies in how we use our freedom: will we employ it to build a peaceful and progressive humanity, or to undermine the very foundations of our survival?

But the point is that you seem to be confusing the evolution of moral beliefs with the evolution of moral principles themselves. This is a well-known fallacy. — Clearbury

I am interested in refining my reasoning and understanding the reason why you say I am confusing concepts. To do so, I will lay out my reasoning step by step, separating and numbering the concepts, in order you can suggest and justify potential errors.

1. The tendencies of evolution (TE) condition living beings.
-Physically: Tuna will never fly, nor will eagles be able to live underwater.
-Behaviorally: Elephants are social beings, while leopards are solitary beings.
- Range of freedom: humans can behave against TE while animals can't
- Etc.

2. As intelligence evolves, the degree of freedom for animals increases. For example, whales have a greater degree of freedom than crocodiles, but neither surpasses the constraints imposed on them by the TE.

3. It is not defensible to claim that TE does not condition humans. As evolved animals, TE affects us just as it does other animals.

4. What happens is that these tendencies have generated more complex beings (humans) who possess intelligence and freedom. This allows us to accept the TE, adapt them to our time, or go against them, a capacity that animals, bound to follow these tendencies strictly, do not have.

5. To ensure this reasoning does not remain purely theoretical, I recall some very significant TE: Propensity for life, diversity, beauty, fragile and ephemeral life, balance, socialization, mutual dependence, freedom, etc.

6. What are ethical principles (EP)? Fundamental and universal norms that guide human behavior, establishing a common framework for discerning right from wrong.

7. It would make no sense for EP to contradict TE, because TE will not change, nor can we change them, and they condition and frame our lives.

8. Reason and consensus must determine EP which should be the practical application of TE to our era.

political systems provide the conditions that determine whether progress can be made or not. — Questioner

I completely agree. The book *Why Nations Fail* by Nobel in economics, Acemoglu, explains that the progress of nations depends on certain conditions, which, in essence, are provided by democracy. I am still reading it, but it seems to me that the conditions for progress identified by Acemoglu align with the framework defined by evolutionary trends, while autocracies, which do not progress, violate that framework. It’s an interesting topic to delve deeper into.

According to a recent report measuring the global state of democracy, the number of countries worldwide moving towards authoritarianism is more than double the number moving towards democracy. — Questioner

I am surprised that while democracies are in decline, and according to the Nobel, progress will also be affected, no established power is taking action to counteract this. Yet another demonstration of how democracies are being attacked: Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Romania had to invalidate the recent elections because Russia interfered and managed to get the pro-Russian candidate elected, instead of the pro-EU candidate, supported by the majority, who had been defeated.

So what do we do as we watch the world slide into autocracy? — Questioner

The selfish individuals in power know exactly where they are headed; another part of humanity (the most humble, who suffer) know where they do not want to go. And a large part of educated humanity has reasonable doubts about the direction in which humanity should move, partly because they resist accepting that we are part of something much greater than ourselves and cannot act against it. If we continue like this, it is clear that the selfish individuals in power will end up imposing their criteria.

As I have argued, solutions will not come from governments, nor from supranational institutions that politicians have discredited and will continue to discredit as long as humanity remains uncertain about how to act.

Global problems require global solutions, which cannot come from politicized and discredited supranational institutions. I see no other solution than to turn to individuals united around an idea that benefits them and that they can understand: The world must respect the trends of evolution: life, diversity, beauty, freedom, the development of intelligence, balance, etc. What is important, at first, is to ensure a broad consensus, even if it means giving up some of these elements or refraining from calling them ethical principles.

I am aware that, in defense of humanity, I am treading on unknown ground.

Could the entire world’s population agree on what is good or bad for humanity? — Questioner

If Trump, by telling many falsehoods, managed to gather 77 million people to his project, it should be possible for a single idea, well-structured and explained, to unite the wills of a few hundred million citizens worldwide.

What form would this “apolitical authority” take and from where would it derive its power? — Questioner

Their power has the same justification as the power of citizens in any democratic state, but with three fundamental differences:
A) The scope of the vote is not national but global;
B) Citizens who do not have this right in their own country can also vote;
C) It does not have any of the three traditional powers of a state, only a small structure that honestly receives and distributes relevant information, periodically collects opinions, and informs the world of the results.

I wonder what would happen if 500 million people insisted that the head of state of country X must step down because he is harming humanity.

I imagine that such an organization should be born affiliated with one of the major global organizations that defend human rights, and later on become independent.

By the way, I'm not advocating for anarchism !!

@Banno
@Janus
@Clearbury
@AmadeusD

FOCUSING THE TOPIC

I am a very recent member of TPF, and I’m not entirely familiar with the customs here, but as the initiator of the OP (Original Post), I believe it’s my responsibility to try to focus the discussion.

We are likely people with diverse academic backgrounds, life experiences, and professional careers. This diversity makes the conversation lively and very interesting, but to avoid getting sidetracked, we should concentrate on the goal of the OP:

• The world is not doing well. We don’t solve the systemic problems.

• Why can’t humanity find ethical principles to guide its behavior and decisions? Do such principles exist? Where are they?

• Could the persistent trends that Earth’s evolution has shown serve as a source from which to derive principles to guide humanity?

• When something is not working, we must make changes. Can we contribute to improving the state of humanity?

My background and experience are in business and economics. Why do I bring these topics to TPF? Because I enjoy philosophy for its conceptual rigor and demand for coherence, as it helps me reflect and, if necessary, adjust my theses.

To attempt to improve the state of humanity, and here lies the main challenge, we must start from theories. However, the effort will be in vain if we cannot propose actions that could be put into practice.

Note: In my opinion, some posts have revealed two misunderstandings regarding trends:

• The trends I consider fundamental are not limited to evolution as Darwin conceived it. At the beginning of our planet, they were physical trends, then chemical, later biological, and finally (I’m not sure what to call it) they transformed into intelligence and consciousness. These trends will continue even if humanity self-destructs.

• Trends affect humans, and we observe them embodied in ourselves, but we are not significant enough to constitute a trend. Humanity has existed for only 0.004% of Earth’s lifespan. If we confuse trends with our actions, it becomes impossible to draw valid conclusions.

@Nils Loc

I see no contradictions between what you mention, which is true, and what I propose. It might be that competition among living beings is also a tendency in evolution; I’ll think about it.

If the paradigm I propose is correct, then the events that occur in the world should fit within it. As a reminder, I argue that the major trends of evolution are beneficial for humanity and that they form a framework within which human behavior should develop.Let’s see how we can evaluate the facts you present considering these trends.

Competition and the struggle to ensure natural selection have been a constant in the evolution of living beings and, in fact, continue to exist in different forms with humans; competition drives progress. According to my thesis, every evolutionary big trend is good, and I believe competition is beneficial as it advances humanity. However, we must also respect all other trends, such as evolutionary balance, the preservation of life and diversity, the development of intelligence, and so on.

The result of integrating all of this into the proposed paradigm might look, in general terms, as follows:

Competition is good and should be maintained, but it is constrained by the respect owed to other evolutionary trends.

• Respect for life: Competition and progress are incompatible with an arms race.
• Respect for individuals arising from human interdependence: Social protection for those who lose their jobs due to the closure of obsolete activities.
• Maintaining diversity: Competition cannot reduce diversity to a monopoly. Because, when they can, abuse their position.
• Adapting evolutionary trends to contemporary situations through intelligence: A portion of the gains obtained by the winning competitor should be redistributed through taxes.
• Human actions that do not overtly violate major trends: For instance, investing in Coca-Cola stocks or excessive consumption. However, I believe we must develop the consciousness with which we have been endowed, as this very consciousness allows us to avoid excessive consumption or discarding unhealthy products.

These are very complex topics to address in a few lines, but at first glance, I see no contradictions in incorporating your comments into my proposal.

So, how do we produce “citizens of the world” if they are denied the full truth? — Questioner

Education. We need an educational system that guides our young people to take into account and acknowledge all of history and all perspectives. And this requires that we overcome the forces (like populism) that keep us mired in our basest instincts. — Questioner

This is an important question. I have some ideas that need to be checked and refined.

I am deeply convinced that politicians will not solve humanity’s problems. Here’s why:

1. Self-Interest over common good: Many politicians are not genuinely interested in addressing human issues; they pursue their own interests and those of their cronies. Even truly democratic politicians prioritize staying in power, which often conflicts with humanity’s larger needs.

2. Geopolitical constraints: Politicians are bound by geopolitical considerations and cannot act solely based on ethical principles. For example, Biden providing weapons to exterminate Palestinians to secure Jewish votes and support, or the global south supporting Russia’s invasion to counterbalance Western dominance.

3. Erosion of global Institutions: Politicians have rendered crucial global institutions like the UN ineffective. Some actively try to weaken others, such as the EU, and we have yet to see the long-term impact of Trump’s influence on U.S. institutions.

Politicians will not drive the transformative change the world needs.

Could we leverage major evolutionary trends to provoke this change? Maybe, let us think about it.

I am not naive, and I know that what I am about to explain is not easy to achieve. However, I also know that when something does not work, we must imagine actions that, even if they seem utopian at first, can, if well-developed and implemented, help us solve the problems.

There is an enormous source of potential that could ignite this change: the 8 billion intelligent minds spread across the globe. These minds could be mobilized into action if honestly equipped with knowledge, accurate information, and shared human objectives. So, why is basic education still managed by local governments, each imposing its own biases, instead of creating a global standard for basic human education?

Fortunately, we now have tools that didn’t exist a decade ago. We can create worldwide networks, access instant translations in hundreds of languages, and more. These tools offer unprecedented opportunities for collaboration and change.

If a certain consensus could be reached among people from different countries and cultures about what is good or bad for humanity, it could mark the beginning of a collegiate apolitical authority capable of morally censuring actions by governments and other centres of power that go against humanity's interests. If this idea works, millions of people could join in and drive change.

@Nils Loc

I agree with most of your post; what you say is true.

We both talk about trends, but we don’t assign the same meaning to them. For me, the trends that can give rise to ethical principles are long-term trends that are far above events which, on the time scale we are considering, are not significant.

The fact you mention about cod and capelin, or also whales and plankton, does not undermine the great trend of generating life. From this, we cannot deduce that evolution generates death or destruction, the life of cod, capelin, whales, and plankton continues. In any case, we might deduce an important trend: living beings need to feed, and some do so by eating other animals, a trend that also extends to humans, who feed on cod, chickens, or pigs.

You are just cherry picking "trends" that align with some sense of life/diversity conservation. Nature's means of limiting growth may not be fun. — Nils Loc

I don’t believe I engage in "cherry-picking" and, since I aim to reason rigorously, I have no objection to delving deeper into the topic of great trends and, if necessary, making corrections. The trends I speak of are sequences of events originating in very remote times, persisting, and many of them "passing through" the plant kingdom, continuing in the animal kingdom, and finally reaching humans.

I think we must distinguish between a trend and the mechanisms that sustain it. "Equilibrium" is, in my view, a constant in evolution. As you rightly say, the mechanisms nature uses to maintain this trend are not fun.

Your comment provides an opportunity to present a good example of what I’m trying to convey:

• Equilibrium, the propensity for life, and freedom are three evolutionary trends which, according to my thesis, shed light on how we should act.
• Human overpopulation is a fact that is destabilizing certain areas of the planet. Since humans must maintain these trends, we need to correct this imbalance.
• The actions we take cannot go against the trends of evolution.
• To solve the problem, we must fully utilize the attributes we’ve been given: intelligence and consciousness.
• Possible actions could include informing the population about the advantages of limiting the number of children, providing free contraceptives, and educating women in sub-Saharan countries (where population growth is highest), among others.
• Actions that cannot be carried out because they violate evolutionary trends (propensity for life and freedom) include sterilization, penalties for exceeding a prescribed number of children, and wars that eliminate individuals.

Animals have their instincts. We can't rely solely on basic instincts; we have more sophisticated tools and must decide how to adapt to and respect the trends in our present world.

@Questioner

We agree on many things, among others, that animal instincts are also within us; we share the same origin. However, humans have additional characteristics: intelligence, freedom, and consciousness.

The world is at a very complicated moment. We should all reflect on the end we might face if we continue this way. When something doesn’t work, we must change our approach. Philosophy should help us organize reason but also draw practical conclusions that shed light on solving today’s problems.
If we do not understand where we are, we cannot know where we should go.

We don’t know the cause, but the truth is that a long evolution following very specific tendencies has led to our appearance on Earth. We are free humans, endowed with intelligence, yet without preexisting knowledge, and with a consciousness that, if we choose, we can develop to perceive our self, our environment, and the role we are meant to adopt.

Whether we like it or not, we must make decisions continuously, thereby shaping our life and our world. What criteria do we use to decide? What our body asks of us? The fake news that reaches our phones? What the leader of our political party, in whom we trust blindly, suggests? What our religion or favourite philosophers tell us? Do we let ourselves be guided by the instincts embedded in our genes that stem from the animal world? It is crucial to reason and strive to agree on criteria for action.

You already know my stance: We have powerful and persistent evolutionary tendencies that influence us, and from them, through reason, we can derive permanent principles to guide our behavior. Our role is to ensure that the trends of evolution are intelligently implemented in our world.

Some of you may disagree, but in that case, you should explain what these ethical principles that humans should accept are, and where they come from. Can philosophy contribute to establishing ethical principles that could be easily explained and accepted by people of different beliefs and cultures?

I don't see how. Why should we do as evolution says? — Banno

Why not?

Here are the reasons why I think we should follow these trends:

• They are powerful, and neither will they change, nor can we change them. It is better to accept them and adapt intelligently to the 21st century.

• If we aim to act in accordance with these trends, including using reason to put them into practice, we must behave in ways like those suggested by many philosophers who have addressed ethical principles.

• It is reasonable to have doubts about whether we should follow them or not, but I don't think anyone can prove they are harmful to humanity's future.

Recognizing these trends could be a way to spark some consensus among humanity, as they benefit many, are easy to explain and understand, and naturally encourage compliance. However, we should not expect power structures to contribute, as their interests often diverge from those of humanity

I think you have mixed up your cause and effect. It's the other way around. The laws and principals that "regulate" nature gave rise to the diversity of life on earth. — Questioner

Aren’t we saying the same thing? Let me try to put it in different words: Looking at evolutionary trends, it seems there are laws and principles underlying the entirety of evolution, including the nature and diversity of life.

Every genocide ever carried out was done with the express fear that if the "other" were not exterminated, the survival of the exterminating group was threatened. So, if done in the interests of survival, it does seem to fit evolutionary principles. — Questioner

Many genocides are not a response to aggression; they are initiatives aimed at transforming diversity into uniformity.

Nevertheless, here lies the real problem: humans making decisions contrary to evolutionary trends. A genocide can be the final wrong decision in a chain of errors. What criteria for solutions can be derived from evolutionary trends? We must respect life; the world is diverse, and we must manage that diversity rather than destroy it; we are entirely dependent on one another and must recognize the dignity of others; evolution is balance, imbalances and injustices generate problems. Finally, evolution has endowed us with a consciousness that we must individually develop (the capacity to understand our environment and the role we must adopt).

What happens when, for some reason, we fail to develop our consciousness? Instead of giving my opinion, I prefer to pose a few questions for reflection:

• How is a head of state who threatens or invades a neighbouring country different from an alpha male marking its territory?
• How is someone insensitive to the suffering of others different from animals, who remain unaffected by the problems others in their species may face?
• How is a dictator who clings to power any different from an alpha male that refuses to leave its position until defeated by a younger rival?
• How is an animal that feeds on the weakest different from a sexual abuser?

Responding to aggression to preserve life is one possible reaction. However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends.

Humans must decide whether to respect the powerful trends of evolutions or to challenge them. Humanity’s progress, or a high risk of self-destruction, depends on our decisions.

The theory of evolution merely says that life changes over time. The acts of humans only affect this in so far as they change the environment in which evolution is taking place. — Questioner

When I say evolution, I am not referring to Darwin's theory but to the complete evolution that has taken place from the initial incandescent ball of our planet to today. Many human actions have little significance, but there are others—especially those carried out from positions of power—that challenge the trends of evolution.

The global capitalist paradigm, preceded by state conquest, has done much to eliminate cultural and biological diversity. Why isn't this just another trend of evolution? — Nils Loc

I believe we are saying similar things. The difference lies in our perspectives.

I argue that the Earth's evolution (4.6 billion years) follows certain trends, one of which is generating diversity. What you are saying is true, but it doesn't rise to the level of a trend, as it concerns very specific events during the brief period humans have existed (which is just 0.004% of the elapsed time). If we categorize human actions as trends or give them excessive relevance "on a cosmic scale," nothing makes sense.

Let me put it another way: our planet evolves, creating life, beauty, intelligence, freedom, etc. But none of this makes sense if we consider it all to be the seed of its destruction. From my perspective, if we view it differently, everything aligns: evolution produces free and intelligent humans who can choose either to follow certain trends or to challenge them. Our destiny depends on our ability to understand where we are and how we should behave. Hence the importance of recognizing certain references; I suggest the great trends.

Nature is indifferent to what comes next, even if the long term universal evolutionary trend is increased complexity. — Nils Loc

This makes sense on a conceptual level, and it even seems logical, but the facts prove to be different: nature does indeed lay the groundwork for what comes next (if humans don't manage to destroy it). Whales will continue to be born, the intelligence of future generations will not diminish, if we stop polluting the atmosphere, the climate will recover, natural beauty will continue to exist, and so on. I don't know why, but long standing trends will continue.

If what you are espousing is some combination of pragmatism and constructivism, then say so and stop there, without the pretence that evolution somehow provides your imperative. — Banno

Agreed: ethical "imperatives" cannot be deduced from evolution. They are merely criteria that humans may choose to ignore. However, we can also consider that they provide insights into how we should behave. It seems to me that all other sources of ethical principles proposed by philosophers are similar in this regard. After all, it is human free will that is ultimately responsible for managing our world.

I have trouble right out of the gate. I don't see that evolution occurs outside of life. The earth doesn't evolve. — Fire Ologist

Your comment compelled me to delve deeper into the topic: reviewing philosophical concepts, dictionnaire, and ChatGPT. In the end, I think it’s a semantic issue. In this context, evolution means progressing toward more complex structures; thus, evolution has occurred from the Big Bang to today. However, we must distinguish between physical, chemical, and biological evolution. Biological evolution is an emergent process, and the leap from chemical to biological evolution is called abiogenesis, a key element science seeks to understand.

we can't use evolutionary forces too explain how personal interactions have an ethical component to them — Fire Ologist

I accept that there is no direct relationship between what has happened in evolution and ethical "ought-to-be." Some of you, with a philosophical background, likely know this better, but it seems to me that ethical "ought-to-be" also cannot be deduced from the various sources of ethical principles proposed throughout history.
.
In my view, the long-term trends of evolution are another source of inspiration for establishing ethical principles: they are universal, timeless, flexible, non-coercive, and demand personal reflection. In my opinion, they have some additional characteristics compared to other sources of ethical principles: their origin lies in science, and they won’t change. We are free to accept or reject them. As a mental exercise, we should consider what would happen if we chose to go against them, that is, instead of preserving life, we eliminate it; instead of fostering diversity, we suppress it; instead of protecting beauty, we destroy it; instead of correcting the imbalances we’ve created (ecological, environmental, socioeconomic) we maintain them; and, instead of recognizing others’ dignity, even though we cannot live without them, we despise them. What could be the consequences of this behaviour?

And we didn't just discover this gap between what is and what ought to be; we made it, when we did what we ought not do. We created the first gap between "is" and "ought". We created the first injustice in nature — Fire Ologist

I think what you're saying is very accurate. This is precisely humanity's problem: we decide based on our own criteria without fully appreciating the magnitude and persistence of the forces (trends) that affect us.

Thank you, @Banno and @Fire Ologist, for your posts, which I will address together.

As I mention in my profile, my background is in economics, not philosophy. I enjoy the world of philosophy because it helps me to reason correctly. I dedicate time to trying to understand the world and, above all, to seeing if I can contribute to improving it. I seek, with rigor, concepts and procedures that can generate practical actions.

@Banno I have delved deeper into the ideas I had about Moral Realism, read the SEP article, and concluded that you are right: I understand that it is not possible to deduce unequivocally an "ought" from the tendencies of evolution. However, it is not possible to deduce that ethical principles derived from evolution are false. I also mentioned two other theories in defense of my thesis: Ethical Constructivism and Pragmatism. Do these theories (presented in post 3 of 4) justify the claim that the "ought" can be deduced from evolutionary tendencies?

@Fire Ologist I would say that evolution begins long before life appears, specifically, it starts with the Big Bang.

I agree with most of your post and with the idea that ethics manifests with humans. Of course, I also ask myself: how does ethics emerge?

Science explains to us, and we all admit, that an atom contains virtually no matter and is mostly energy (even though we perceive matter), it explains that chemical reactions transformed into biological reactions, that genes contain all the instructions for the development of life, and that intelligence and consciousness emerged. Today, we cannot explain how these significant qualitative leaps occur. I do not know where ethics begins to emerge, just as I do not know where the instructions that eventually end up encoded in genes and enable the development of very complex lives begin to form. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter so much when these events began to occur; rather, what matters is that there is a tendency in evolution that generates them.

Banno and Fire Ologist, I believe that, in the current state of science, if we want to delve into the issues we are discussing, we have a valuable source of information in analysing the reality of evolution and, above all, its tendencies, as these are the real manifestations of what we do not fully understand. We do not know their origin well, nor can we explain the qualitative leaps, but we can observe the direction they take, and it is this direction that matters.

In my world (the world of business and economics) decisions are constantly made without all the necessary information (as it is impossible to have it all), simply because they appear logical. It is only after implementation that their results become clear. This system allows us to move forward, although we make mistakes that must be promptly addressed.

Although it is not a philosophical demonstration either, I believe that the paradigm I propose is logical, coherent, explains what is happening in the world, and indicates the guidelines for how we should act. In summary, it is as follows:

• The Earth evolves according to tendencies that, thanks to science, we know.
• These tendencies are of great magnitude; they will not change on their own, nor can we change them.
• When we act in the same direction as these tendencies, we foster humanity’s positive evolution. When we act against them, we harm it. The benefit or harm is proportional to the power we wield.
• If we want to improve humanity, we must do so without going against these tendencies. We can achieve improvement by appropriately disseminating truthful information and knowledge. At the same time, it is necessary to promote the development of individual consciousness.

Even if it is not a philosophical demonstration, does this paradigm make sense?

FOURTH POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them
3. From facts to how things should be
4. A worldview from this perspective (THIS POST)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.- A VISION OF THE WORLD FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE

From the previous reflections, it follows that we can view the world from a different and practical perspective, one that allows us to glimpse the current problems of humanity.

In the realm of philosophy, theories are validated by their logic, clarity, coherence, and capacity to explain facts. I believe my thesis meets these criteria.

Although knowledge advances, we are far from understanding the universe, our planet, and life. What is undeniable is that all of this is vastly superior to us and far beyond our comprehension.

What we do know, thanks to science, is how our planet has evolved. These are facts that, once established by science, it is up to humans to interpret and draw conclusions from. It seems obvious, and I think we can agree, that there are very consistent trends, that will not change and which we must necessarily accept. Trends have their own irregularities (volatility)

These trends are beneficial to humanity. If we were to go back 2.5 million years, when humans did not yet exist and no one could interfere with these trends, would we classify any of what was happening as "bad"? I think we would have acknowledged that evolution was yielding positive results, even if there were aspects we didn’t fully understand—such as animals feeding on others or natural phenomena (like a volcanic eruption) ending the lives of some living beings. Personally, I believe that these seemingly incongruent elements are due to the volatility of the trends and do not invalidate the overall goodness of evolution.

A few million years later, humans appeared, endowed with freedom, intelligence, and the ability to develop consciousness. These three attributes are positive, and it seems to me that the trends of evolution continue to be beneficial. However, from the moment we learned to use our freedom, the situation began to deteriorate, leading to our current uncertain era. Even though we have existed for only 0.004% of Earth's life, many believe they can oppose the trends of evolution, imposing their personal criteria and selfishness through force, be it political, economic, religious, media-driven, or otherwise.

A key element in understanding what is happening to us is that, whether we consider evolutionary trends good or not, it is impossible to build a stable world by acting against the evolution. Evidence of this is that when a political regime goes against evolution, it can only sustain itself by imprisoning dissenters, censoring information, and creating a significant repressive system.

Another fundamental concept is that the greatest challenges to evolution, and therefore to the world’s stability, arise when power is combined with unconsciousness (the inability to interpret and empathize with the environment).

To promote change, it is essential to share knowledge and truthful information with all of humanity and encourage the development of individual consciousness.

Humanity will be what we humans decide it to be. If we make the wrong decisions, we may disappear, but the trends of evolution will continue.
_______________________

To those who share, even partially, my thesis, I suggest that we consider the possibility of working together to review and strengthen it. Additionally, we could study what should be done to reverse the situation, a topic on which I have some ideas.

THIRD POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends

2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them

3.From facts to how things should be (THIS POST)

4. A worldview from this perspective
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. — ToothyMaw

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be? — Banno

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be. — Banno

I think what needs to be re-evaluated is this mentality itself. Clearly, the most moral thing is to prevent future people who suffer, but this is not following the dictates of evolution. And about these dictates of evolution, that is a complete fallacy (appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy) to think that a sort of "law of nature" (evolution) is something we should act upon. — schopenhauer1

Ok, I thoroughly grant that to claim all this as some sort of definitive grounding for what ethics is and what ought to be would be fully sentimental, rather than rational. — javra

3.- FROM FACTS TO HOW THINGS OUGHT TO BE

Evolution will maintain its tendencies; it has always been so and will continue to be. These tendencies provide the framework within which we must act. As you rightly point out, I must justify how we move from the facts established by science to the realm of "ought."

Tendencies are an easily perceptible reality. To determine how the future ought to be, we must establish values, ethical principles, or ideals.

Several contemporary theories, in my view, justify this transition:

Moral Realism: As I explained in the previous post, ethical values are embedded within the very tendencies of evolution.

Ethical Constructivism: Criteria emerge from social agreements. I am convinced that, among people who have developed their consciousness (those who interpret their environment correctly, have delved into their own selves, and understand their place in the world) there would be a broad consensus, despite differing cultures or beliefs, that one cannot act against the tendencies of evolution. What model of humanity would they consider as a goal? It would probably be one where many of the previously outlined ethical principles converge.

Pragmatism: I believe the goal we should set, as it benefits the greatest number of people, could be defined as follows: the peaceful progress of a diverse and multicultural humanity.

In my opinion, the ethical principles derived from evolution trends remain consistent across all three perspectives.

What I am certain of is that humanity has no future if it acts against the tendencies of evolution. This includes actions such as: killing, destroying beauty, eliminating the diversity of ideas and cultures, prioritizing confrontation over cooperation, allowing power to override individual freedoms, maintaining socioeconomic inequalities, spreading misinformation to hinder intellectual development, and so on.

How do these ideas fit in with your belief that we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify within these evolutionary trends? — Agree-to-Disagree

So, which ethical principle were you talking about here? — Corvus

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution. — wonderer1

You can correlate the evolved traits you assign to humans with those you find desirable, or ethical, all day, but I don't think it validates your thesis — ToothyMaw

Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death? — J

I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization. — Wayfarer

Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces, — Fire Ologist

I think you need to give a description of these trends in value-neutral terms, so we can decide for ourselves whether they must necessarily be beneficial for humanity. — J

SECOND POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them (THIS POST)
3. From facts to how things should be
4. A worldview from this perspective

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. TRENDS AND ETHICAL PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM THEM
Below are the main trends observed in evolution, along with some of the ethical principles they implicitly carry.

INCLINATION TOWARD LIFE
Despite the volatility of this trend, marked by epidemics, natural disasters, wars, etc., the Earth has evolved from no living beings to 8 billion people, plus countless animals and plants.

Ethical Principles: Respect for life. Preservation of habitats, both natural and artificial (urban planning). Peace and stability to allow life to thrive. Promotion of health and well-being.

DIVERSITY
Scientists estimate there may be between 8.7 and 10 million species, with many yet to be discovered. Once, Earth was a molten mass devoid of life. Clearly, maintaining diversity is a crucial trend.

Ethical Principles: Respect for the diversity of races, cultures, beliefs, opinions, and sexual orientations. Opposition to persecution or suppression of differing opinions. Coexistence in diversity, tolerance, and dialogue. Encouraging cooperation and minimizing confrontation.

LIFE IS FRAGILE AND EPHEMERAL
Life's brevity is a constant. We participate in evolution for a limited time, and no one is expected to be eternal.

Ethical Principles: Acceptance of death as a natural part of life. Embracing aging without undue attempts to prolong life artificially. Practicing humility over arrogance, recognizing the transience of our existence.

BALANCE
Evolution is a delicate balance that must be maintained. Disruptions can endanger life, as seen with climate change or migration.

Ethical Principles: Humans must address the imbalances they cause: climate change, resource overexploitation, water management, socioeconomic inequalities, balance food and population.

SOCIALIZATION
We’ve evolved from small, isolated tribes to large urban conglomerates. Coexistence is inevitable and must be managed.

Ethical Principles: Promote cooperation and harmonious coexistence. Balance individual rights with those of others. Develop mutual respect and empathy.

MUTUAL DEPENDENCE
Parallel to socialization, we’ve moved from self-sufficiency to total interdependence. Life today depends on the cooperation of countless anonymous individuals.

Ethical Principles: Respect for all humans and recognition of others’ dignity. Defense of others’ rights and sharing resources to sustain those who enable our lives. Prioritizing collective benefit over individual gain.

BEAUTY
Throughout evolution, the universe's manifestations have aligned with human perception, generating an objective beauty that few dispute. Human-created beauty, however, is subjective.

Ethical Principles: Respect and preserve beauty as it fosters peaceful coexistence. Avoid environmental degradation. Promote classical arts and conserve human-made beauty. Protect the planet’s natural splendor.

FREEDOM
A human attribute developed through evolution, partially seen in higher animals but reaching its zenith in humans. Our freedom even allows us to challenge life-giving trends. Yet, power often leads to the suppression of others’ freedoms.

Ethical Principles: No one should usurp another's freedom. Respect others' freedoms. Responsibility in voting, as politicians legislate individual freedoms. Demand regular elections. Ensure a fair judicial system.

INTELLIGENCE
Evolution has fostered intelligence, with signs in higher animals, and now manifests in eight billion human brains worldwide. However, evolution does not provide information for optimal individual intellectual functioning. Knowledge is produced by humans.

Ethical Principles: Organize to create and share knowledge (schools, universities). Knowledge dissemination reduces inequality and promotes adaptation. Developing intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for humanity’s well-being (must be combined with consciousness). Combat fake news as it disrupts intellectual processes.

CONSCIOUSNESS
This attribute allows humans to perceive their surroundings, understand themselves, and decide how to act. Its development is lifelong, setting humans apart from animals and fostering a holistic view of the cosmos, nature, and humanity. It complements and connects all other trends.

Ethical Principles: Educate and promote consciousness to improve awareness of the environment and others' needs. Every conscious being deserves respect, regardless of their limitations or circumstances. Individuals are accountable for their actions. Promote justice. Power should not rest with those lacking the consciousness to understand their environment or others' needs

I would like to thank you for your comments and the links you’ve shared, which help me identify weaknesses in my original post (OP) and demand greater precision. The OP is a text meant to outline a topic, but it is not the appropriate document for detailed arguments. I will attempt to address your observations in four posts:

1. Evolution and Trends (this post)
2. Trends and the Ethical Principles derived from them
3. From facts to what ought to be
4. Worldview from this perspective

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what exactly are you referring to when you say "evolution"? — I like sushi

but the general outlook you’ve outlined – this along with the Gaia hypothesis – can easily be found in keeping with notions such as that of an Anima Mundi. One in which a pre-Abrahamic notion of Logos pervades all that is – be it living or nonliving. — javra

Perhaps you need to say more about what an evolutionary trend is? — J

EVOLUTION AND TRENDS

One of the frequently discussed issues is that my understanding of evolution and trends is not clearly explained.

- Evolution refers to the journey our planet has undergone over 4.6 billion years, from the initial “incandescent ball” to our 21st century.

- Trend refers to the predominant direction or course that a phenomenon or behavior follows over time. Its parameters are duration, magnitude, and volatility.

By trends of evolution, I mean the sequence of events that have consistently followed the same direction throughout Earth’s evolution. I do not consider isolated events, such as the existence of dinosaurs, cosmic cataclysms, or the Neanderthals, to be trends. These phenomena are examples of the volatility within a trend.

I only regard as trends those of enormous magnitude or “force,” such as the tendency toward life or diversity. After the five cosmic cataclysms that wiped out 80-90% of species, life and diversity continued. This suggests that there are trends of enormous magnitude.

Even powerful trends exhibit volatility. Sometimes, a tsunami or an infection wipes out many lives, but this does not negate the existence of the trend. As some of you have noted, there are also destructive events and suffering, and this is true. However, these are not major trends; many are consequences of human actions contrary to evolution, while others are collateral effects. We cannot equate deaths caused by violence (a result of human action) with births (a trend toward life).

I believe there is a distinction between a trend and the mechanisms that enable evolution, such as natural selection or adaptation to the environment.

I have deliberately avoided delving into the deeper causes that might have generated these trends, as this is a matter of personal belief, a domain we must all respect. Setting aside these deeper causes allows people with different beliefs to freely interpret and draw conclusions about the facts explained by science.

Although I have no arguments to prove it, since it involves estimating the future, common sense leads me to believe that these trends will not change. Life will continue, living beings will keep dying, diversity will not give way to homogeneity, and so on. Long-standing, powerful trends are well-established and are unlikely to change.

So before there was life on earth, there was no evolutionary process on earth; evolution happens where living things happen. — Fire Ologist

I don’t see it the same way. Scientists explain that when the Earth began to cool, the 118 basic elements that came from the stars started combining to form molecules. One of these was water, while others were organic molecules essential for life. The Earth embarked on an evolutionary process that ultimately led to the emergence of life. I don’t know the causes, but we must stick to the facts. Evolution bagan before life

But life and evolution existed before people did. So for ethics to derive from or be bound to evolution, you have to show where ethics lived before people evolved — Fire Ologist

Your question about where ethics resided before life is well-posed, but I don’t know the answer—just as I don’t know where intelligence, life, or consciousness were, and yet no one doubts that all three exist. To progress in a complex line of reasoning like this, we cannot demand that everything be perfectly clear. Ultimately, we will need to assess whether the hypothesis makes sense, whether it explains what is happening in the world, and whether we can draw conclusions about how we, and the humanity, ought to act.

Evolution did not arise outside of or before life.
Then humans arose or evolved, and then ethics came to be. Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces — Fire Ologist

An OP is necessarily limited in length. In a future post, I will explore some topics in greater depth.

The word you're looking for is "progress". People used to believe in it. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but progress with important qualifications: peaceful, inclusive for all, respecting human dignity, and without violating the trends of evolution.

However, I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization. It seems to attribute a kind of intentional moral guidance to evolutionary trends, which could be seen as filling the gap left by traditional creation myths. If we look at your Practical Examples, 'evolution' could almost be replaced with 'God' or 'the Creator,' and the text would still resonate, for instance, 'God has endowed us with... — Wayfarer

My approach is based on facts; in this way, I respect different personal beliefs while also proposing a starting platform (the facts explained by scientists) that can achieve broad consensus, regardless of individual beliefs

But I think it's worth questioning whether attributing ethical direction to natural processes risks an overly idealistic optimism. After all, evolutionary processes are not inherently moral; they produce life and diversity, but they also result in competition, predation, and extinction — Wayfarer

Of course, it is worth questioning whether attributing ethical content to natural evolution is correct or not. To me, it seems like the most solid foundation we have for ethical principles. What other foundations could be more solid than a trend that has persisted for millions of years?
I would say that competition, predation, and extinction are not primary trends; rather, they are mechanisms that drive evolution.

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be? — Banno

Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts. Humans, through their free will, must decide how they want to proceed—"how things ought to be"—considering what has happened in the past and the far-reaching consequences of their choices. We can easily envision two possible scenarios: one in which humans align their decisions with evolutionary trends, leading to peaceful, balanced, and harmonious development; and another where these trends are opposed, resulting in death, freedom only for those in power, economic and social inequality, slavery, widespread pollution, erasure of beauty, etc.

2. The trends you’ve isolated are uniformly positive; they can be easily translated into familiar ethical precepts for humans. Isn’t that stacking the deck? Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death? If we knew the end of Earth’s story, and it was one in which the positive trends prevailed, we might be justified in putting the current spotlight on them. But for all we know, the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones. — J

It seems to me that your point addresses two different issues:

A. The Problem of Evil: As far as I know, no one has fully explained the existence of evil. In my opinion, most evil arises from human actions that go against evolutionary trends. I have doubts about the second source of evil (such as diseases and the collateral effects of nature), but I believe these could perhaps be explained as deviations from the evolutionary trends.

B.Destructive Trends: You state, “the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones.” This, indeed, is a negative point of view, but it can be reframed positively if we recognize that human actions are not the same as evolutionary trends—they are simply the choices of free individuals who may act against long-standing trends. In this context, things begin to make sense. Evolutionary trends are beneficial for humanity, and our goal should be to align our actions with them. I believe we must acknowledge that our freedom is so vast that we have the power to decide how we want our world to end up.

1. Very few humans give much consideration to the flourishing of the species, and they need reasons – ethical reasons, presumably – why something so abstract should count more than their immediate practical concerns, which may be pursued both successfully and unethically — J

You are right, and it frightens me to think that what you describe reminds me of how our ancestors—the animals—behave: they show little concern for their peers and focused solely on immediate needs. We, as more sophisticated beings, have the capacity to understand and empathize with others. Our ancestors were not endowed with a fully developable consciousness.

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. We live in a modern world that very much bucks the circumstances that may have formed human nature. — ToothyMaw

We, as humans, must accept the existence of a framework, defined by evolutionary trends, that cannot be changed. In our modern world, it is up to us to uncover and understand the circumstances that have shaped our human nature—this is knowledge. However, we can observe the consequences of attempting to go against this framework (such as violence, intolerance of diversity, climate change, etc.). While we, as free beings, have the power to destroy ourselves, we cannot alter the fundamental laws of this framework (ethic principles)

I don't see how certain evolutionary trends - even if they promote peaceful coexistence - are necessarily anything other than the consequences of nature. Is the peaceful coexistence to be found in evolutionary trends the desired end? Is that what we ought to seek? Because you appear to have no justification for that ought. — ToothyMaw

When we observe animals, we see the results of evolutionary trends in their purest form. They have not been interfered with by intelligent and free beings. When humans appear with our ability to accept or interfere with natural laws, we are faced with a choice: to follow the trends of evolution in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, or to go against them. We are free to choose the desired end. Where will we end up if we go against the trends?

I became a member of TPF a few days ago, and I apologize in advance if I make any mistakes in interacting with the forum.

I believe the only thing that certainly exists is experience itself. — Ourora Aureis

Ourora proposes that ethics should be based on personal experience. I agree that this is indeed a source of ethics and, in my opinion the primary one, as long as personal experience is enriched by knowledge developed by others. There are also other potential sources of ethics: philosophical thought, religions, or innate tendencies.

The experiences that serve as the basis for establishing our ethics cannot be reduced to our own life experiences alone, as these are necessarily limited. We must also incorporate other verifiable experiences, which leads us to consider the cumulative knowledge of science.

Scientists tell us that humans have existed for approximately 0.004% of the life of our planet. They also tell us that Earth began as a mass of incandescent matter, which has evolved into the beautiful, life-filled planet we know today. We do not know why things have evolved in this way, but we must accept that both topics are well-established facts.

At this point, before proceeding further, I pose two questions:

A/ Since we are debating ethical principles, which is no minor matter, is it reasonable to say that it is beneficial to incorporate scientific knowledge—information currently considered reliable—into our limited personal experience?

B/ Before continuing our discussion on the sources of ethical principles, is it worthwhile to consider what occurred on our planet before humans existed, that is, when only natural forces operated without human intervention?

If we agree on both points, I believe it is useful to examine the insights offered by the trends followed in Earth’s evolution, trends that will remain unchanged in the future. All of this is knowledge that we can incorporate into our personal experience before determining what we consider ethical.