I basically agree with your comments. I do need to give greater weight to the role of humans because, as you rightly point out, we are becoming increasingly significant within the system. Part of our role is to complement the system and to decide how its trends are ultimately implemented, for example, how we disseminate knowledge so that intelligences can function effectively, or how we address imbalances that affect some regions more than others (climate change, social inequalities)

The system as a whole devellopped as it is not because there was some overarching intelligence making informed decisions for the whole, but because the parts were acting from their partial and limited perspectives — ChatteringMonkey

The reason why the system “is the way it is” is unknown, but science is revealing that it operates according to specific laws (physical, biological, etc.), some of which involve random processes (such as reproduction). I agree that modern humans can modify certain laws (for example, through genetics), but I do not believe we can alter the major underlying trends.

The question I must now address is how humanity might come to accept that respecting the trends of the Earth system, is the path to living with greater peace and less suffering. For now, I will simply frame the issue and, if necessary, develop the argument later.

In 1945, after two world wars and in a moment of collective lucidity, the representatives of 193 countries, acting in the name of “the peoples of the United Nations,” agreed on a set of principles intended to ensure peace and prosperity for humanity. These principles were later complemented with additional agreements (human rights, children’s rights, the SDGs).

A careful reading of these agreements suggests that, although this was likely not intentional at the time, they constitute a practical way of translating the trends of the Earth system into human governance. It is striking that two distinct lines of reasoning lead to very similar objectives.

The United Nations, currently at a low point and facing the challenge of adapting its constitutional mandate to today’s world, should actively disseminate these principles to all citizens, in multiple languages, accessible for different intellectual levels, and using the most advanced technologies available.

If some unscrupulous actors can persuade many people that fake news are true, could not an organization like the UN convince broad segments of humanity that peaceful progress depends on respecting the agreements humanity has reached, especially when these principles reflect the aspirations of a large part of humankind?

Could power continue to act with impunity against the Earth system if a significant portion of humanity actively supported the principles enshrined in the United Nations?

A careful reading of these agreements suggests that, although this was likely not intentional at the time, they constitute a practical way of translating the trends of the Earth system into human governance. It is striking that two distinct lines of reasoning lead to very similar objectives. — Seeker25

I may have missed the argument for this, but what are the trends, and how do human rights and the UN conventions align with this exactly?

This doesn't seem prima facie evident to me.

whereas beauty is a property that, in my view, emerges as a fundamental outcome of the Earth system. — Seeker25

Are we not at once cosmic being and beautiful when open to the natural world?

From previous posts: “The trends of the Earth System 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 Earth System’s tendencies can be applied in many ways, at our discretion. Rather than comparing them point by point with the UN’s founding agreements, we should assess whether those agreements respect, and do not contradict, the system’s tendencies.

Beauty is a tendency that is not reflected in the agreements of the United Nations. Nor is consciousness explicitly mentioned; however, it is evident that all the agreements reached originated in a shared perception (consciousness) of the state of the world and of what it required.

To avoid unnecessarily lengthening the text, I will extract several paragraphs and highlight in bold the system tendency that is being accomplished.

Some excerpts from theCHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (1945)

Preamble

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
• To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war …(propensity for life, intelligence)
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small. (diversity)
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law (complexity governance)
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, (balance, freedom)

AND FOR THESE ENDS
• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, (diversity, mutual dependence)
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,(mutual dependence)
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all people. (intelligence, complexity, consciousness, balance)

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES (managing complexity)
• … the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace … (propensity for life, intelligence)
• Develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples… (freedom, diversity)
• To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems (intelligence) of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. (freedom, diversity)
• …
• All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state …

**********
The declaration of human rights is very extensive and reflects highly specific agreements, none of which contradict the tendencies of the Earth System. I will highlight only a few articles.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948)
….

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.(protection of life fragile and ephemeral)
2. …

Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (education as a means of fulfilment Intelligence)
2…
3…

Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits(socialization?, beauty?)
2…
…

In summary, my position is this: if we seek a better world, a significant portion of humanity must share common goals. I propose that we agree we are part of the Earth System (vastly greater than ourselves) whose trajectory is well known and we cannot alter. It is therefore futile to act against it, though we can decide how to understand and adapt to it.

When humanity created the United Nations, its member states established guiding principles for “the peoples of the United Nations” to progress in peace. These principles are compatible with the trajectory of the Earth System. One path toward a better world would be for the UN to actively and consistently promote these agreed principles worldwide.

Are we not at once cosmic being and beautiful when open to the natural world? — Alexander Hine

Yes, we are !!

The trends of the Earth System 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.” — Seeker25

Ok, I guess I just don't agree with this, not necessary that the things you listed aren't part of earth's trends, but that the list seems selective to me. Death, competition, conflict and war seem just as much part of it. It seems unlikely for instance that we would have ever had something like the UN Charter if it wasn't for the world wars.

As I alluded to earlier disruptions of temporary equilibria seems like a vital part of how life evolved... I don't think you can just do away with that part of the equation and expect things to keep on going well indefinatly.

The current state of the world is dangerous, generating instability and widespread human suffering. — Seeker25

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-living-in-extreme-poverty?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The trending is positive, not negative.

Conversely, it is also legitimate to argue that the collective human intellect (approximately eight billion individual intelligences distributed across the Earth) should be capable of identifying ways to address the current global situation. — Seeker25

You lost me at "collective." That's not because I don't think individuals aren't benefitted by those that preceded them, nor that a collective might arrive at something beneficial, but just that it suggests the only solutions are found by holding hands and working as a unit with a single minded focus. Great men and women do great things without the interference from others.

Generally, we come up with good ideas by conflicting ours with others, competing against others, and coming up with new mouse traps. I'm not opposed to the idea of your trying to get others into your camp in order to advance your objectives (as you are perhaps doing here), but I am opposed to the idea that a single world notion ought be decided upon and everyone should work single mindedly toward that. That, to the extent I buy into your general concept that we should decide what Mother Earth wants us to do (and I don't), seems as violative of the laws of nature as anything. The world is Darwinian and we exist as we do because of that, not because we tamed ourselves.