Home » Posts tagged 'humankind'
Tag Archives: humankind
Earth will be Ok, life on Earth too, for billions of years to come.
We don’t have to save either! They (Life and Earth) have gone through worse than humankind.
We just need to learn to live in harmony or we humans will disappear. Simple!
For the ease of retrieving information of the recent blog series on the “secretes of life” I decided to present the links in an ordered list:
Secrets of Life: Introduction to the series & song of Irma Lohman
Secrets of Life 1: The first key to life? What is it? Will it provide with answers?
Secrets of Life 2: Matter moves. The very first key is in the frequencies of matter
Secrets of Life 3: Matter is charged. But does a polarity give life?
Secrets of Life 4: The magic of frequencies. Pythagoras and Galilei
Secrets of Life 5: The universe, cycles and music. Kondratieff, Ray Tomes
Secrets of Life 6: Harmonic relationships. A + B become (A+B)
Secrets of Life 7: Life = Awareness, the revelation of what life is in phase 1
Secrets of Life 8: Competition and Fear, phase 2
Secrets of Life 9: The power of being different, phase 3 and higher self awareness
Secrets of Life 10: The art of living together, phase 4, Symbiosis
Secrets of Life 11: Sustainocracy, the next evolutionary step of Democracy
The series is helping people position their own life, their relationship with their natural environment and even the way they address their professional activities. It is my pleasure to be able to contribute.
Much is being discussed about “ethics” in business, finance, government, education, etc. The biggest misconception of all is to attribute ethics to institutions. Ethics is human, not institutional. An institution cannot be blamed for unethical behavior, their leaders and employees can.
Definition of Ethics:
Many people confuse ethics with social morality, as in religion, belief or cultural behavior. One of the more useful definitions of ethics is provided by wikipedia in the names of members of the foundation of critical thinking: “a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures”.
If fact ethics refers to “the conscious way we interact with our environment, human and living nature, in a constructive or destructive way”. Ethics is complex as it demand from us the conscious reflection about our progressive behavior and its consequences. Progress has always a destructive and constructive element, when initiated by human beings as well as evolutionary progress within nature. It opens up a large array of philosophical thinking on the extend of responsibility of the human impact on its environment. How ethic is it to destroy a certain natural landscape for our infrastructures, housing, industrial processes or even agriculture? Where does human progressive dominance end to allow room for other species to evolve or is human dominance and its effects on other species part of their own evolutionary challenge? Hasn’t the competitive crises in the human species stimulated our self-awareness in such a way that we became more creative and competitive? Hasn’t the anthropocene affected life of other species in such a way that new genetic variations have appeared that adopted perfectly well to the human dominance and even to human pollution? Isn’t humankind on its own a challenge for nature to react with destructive force to create balance again in living progress? How ethical must the human species be with its environment and what ethics can we expect from our environment?
When we look at the effects of humankind on its environment then this can be considered very high, especially now, in the era that we live in today. On the other hand we see that these effects are lethal for the long term human sustainability. It is expected that climate changes and pollution will eventually reduce humankind to a much smaller population then we count today. Within 40 years humankind may well implode to a size of little more than 1 billion people (as opposed to more than 7 billion today).
Ethics has hence nothing to do with the way we influence nature itself. This will bounce back to us with equal force as what we did to nature. Nature has this unique ability to find balance in all kinds of extremes, even against humanity. So when we refer to ethics we need to reflect on the way we affect nature in the short and long term to produce effects on us. With this type of ethical consideration we place human evolution within the meaning of sustainable human progress. In this sense we do not dominate nature as we affect our surroundings but assume an adaptive attitude around the effects of nature on us. Nature seeks natural balance no matter what effects this has on humankind. We however seek balance with our consciousness (learning process) about our surroundings to provide us infinite evolutionary chances using the environment properly. We become adaptive partners with our environment for our own benefit. Ethics then refers to the level of reciprocal balance we create with our universe in which we assure our health and security at all times by respecting nature for what it is.
So when people debate on institutional ethics we need to get to terms what an institution really is? From an operational point of view an institution is a specialized group of people performing to reach some predetermined team objective. There are many types of institutions that all perform different types of tasks in a human community. From an ethical point of view we can now look at the institution and determine what impact it has on our sustainable human progress from an environmental point of view? The problem we face is the paradigm in which such evaluation takes place.
Institutions have been traditionally registered and founded to become a legal entity that behaves according human, not natural laws. An institution is a legal instrument that allows the grouping of people around certain objectives protecting the integrity of the people against failure of the institution, while allowing the people involved to share the benefits of it. The institution can hence do things that people would maybe not do themselves from a moral point of view. What motives would an institution have to do what it does and can ethical values be attributed, and by who? Yes, we can, but not to the institution, to the people giving direction to the institution. Why?
The institution is a piece of paper. When no-one does anything with that piece of paper it will not do any harm or good. It is just a number. An institution becomes instrumental in the hands of the human being. It is the human being that deals with the institution that needs to be confronted with the ethics of this usage. The fact that an institution is constituted according to certain human laws does not liberate the user of the instrument from applying moral awareness and consider the ethics of its positioning or functioning. In our current society based on capitalist economics the morality of human progress is expressed in financial means. Within this paradigm ecology and human progress are considered a cost. Ethics are valued against the price one needs to pay and the material benefit one gets in return. The overall holistic picture of a universe reacting back to us is not considered tangible enough to be attributed to the ethics of a single institution nor of its leadership. It is the human system that is unethical because it shows a scientifically proven damaging track record against nature itself and especially our own expectations for a healthy future. What is then unethical? The financial system? Money? Capitalist economics? Consumption? Industrialization? Manufacturing?
None of this is unethical because for every system an alternative system can be chosen. The fact that humankind has self-aware choices makes the usage of instruments that have an unethical impact on our environment unethical. It can be compared with a word. The word itself can never be attributed an emotion or value. It is the context in which the word is being used. The same goes with money. Money has no value, it is the value we attribute to it in a certain context. We can compare it with a hammer. The hammer is a tool that can be used in a constructive way to create a chair. It can also be used to kill. In both cases ethics can be applied, not to the hammer but to the hand that uses it and the purpose it is used for.
So instruments like words, coins, hammers or registered pieces of paper have absolutely no ethical meaning until they are used by human beings for one or another purpose. Right now the ethics of humankind is extremely off course. We are all to blame but those who claim leadership and intentionally keep up the system that is so destructive, should be brought to justice. The problem we have is that ethics has not found its way yet sufficiently in our systems of human laws and that is what is urgently needed. Sustainocracy can be help because it provides the tooling necessary to make a natural selection. It also helps institutions to transform while they still can. The excuse is still that they did not know better, had no choice and were not aware of a new paradigm. Soon no-one will be able to hold with such excuse because new standards are being set. These standards are based on true ethics. When people have a choice they immediately are at fault when their choice is contrary to a true ethical paradigm such sustainocracy. At this stage humankind can not afford to accept unethical leadership or behavior anymore whether we like it or not.
Why don’t politicians support the transformation of society? Why do banks not change their bonus culture? Why do people go to church when they encounter a crisis?
When I try to get overall scientific, business, political or financial support for the transformation of human society into a state of sustainable progress (referred to as the Global Shift) I do not get it. Why? All the crises in the Western world seem to cry out for change yet people only focus to get more of the same. New economies develop based on those that are now in crisis hence knowingly develop their own problems. Why? Why are all these human structures so reluctant to change and destined to repeat their mistakes over and over again? Because all these institutions are not based on “belief”.
It is necessary to be a believer to open up for new realities and hence accept and even conduct progress through the acceptance of change. To understand what I am saying we need to first define “belief”. According Wikipedia belief is:
“Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.”
This definition refers to a “psychological state”, not a proven truth, hence it is subjective to the individual. What do you believe that is true? Proven truth or suspected truth? We tend to accept only what is touchable or commonly accepted as truth. A believer tends to visualize a truth that does not exist yet in the physical or proven world. All our current human surroundings are organized in complex human structures, institutions. These are known, hence true. Anything else, that is not yet included in the human organizational structures is hence unknown and does therefor not exist.
Or it exists when you believe it exists, or could get to exist. True believers open up to things that do not exist yet in our regular life. Everyone who has a hired position inside an institution can only sustain what is known and stops believing. If one would believe he/she would probably question what is served. The only option such people, even so called world leaders, have is to keep in place what has been organized, because it is known. Even when it is in crisis. If they are visionary and see the problems they cause by keeping up the unsustainable they would have to step out of the system to change it. But then they loose their position of power.
From an operational point of view this is logical simply because every human institution is a structure with a particular purpose. It would only change if the purpose of the structure would change or when it goes broke. If those institutions are as significance as a political organization, a financial system of power or a business monopoly, everything will be done to avoid its collapse, not by changing it but by maintaining it, no matter what.
One could expect that common sense would prevail when we see the suffering of so many people caused by this lack of flexibility. But common sense is only based on the same knowledge that is commonly accepted as truth, hence within the same dynamics as where the problems occur.
Science does not help
If we look at the definition of belief why would science then not be a believer? Doesn’t science believe in its own studies to obtain progress in knowledge? Of course it does and that is also the essence of the difference. Science is a non-believer because it looks for proof through commonly, already accepted knowledge. Science does not want to “belief”, it wants to “know”. This interesting paradox of science is that it is continuously searching for knowledge so needs to accept belief to understand that it still has a long way to go to accumulate all knowledge. We still do not know everything. This automatically means that science needs to accept that new knowledge can dispute any old knowledge. We can therefore know for sure that all knowledge is only believed to be true until is proven not to. A crisis is not enough to prove something wrong. Only something different would prove something else to be more truthful. The problem we face is that science does not easily accept this scientific belief. It claims the truth by accepting proof and then holds on to it. If you do so you block yourself from the possibility that what was proven true can also be proven untrue in time. So science accepts the state of belief to motivate the search for knowledge through guided research but does not accept belief to question knowledge that has been accepted as truthful. Science therefor tends to try to prove the known and tends to avoid the unknown. In the process of providing proof to the known we stumble across new knowledge to be proven. Science seems only to advance by further analyzing the known. It is fixed to a particular track. This means that in essence science is not a believer, just a proof provider to perceived knowledge.
So for change we cannot rely on science and hence find that universities only teach science but not belief or the potential of change. They can’t, even if intellectuals inside the university suspect new tracks of knowledge they find difficulties in their institutions to support deviation to the unknown. Universities depend on the resources provided by the structures that do not belief and hence serve the known, not the unknown. Only a very small part of research funds are invested in finding new realities and these even need to be covered up by arguments that the common structures can understand and support.
The world of statistics
Business and politics do not even worry about belief. They reason from the influence of the masses of people either by exerting power on them or by offering external securities in the shape of goods. There is only one certainty and that is the one of proven support in the shape of votes. In essence any purchase is a commercial vote too. From that point of view all of the world of politics and business is measurable and conducted through statistics rather than belief. The statistics are translated into a standardized system of values, often called money. Financial systems manage money and hence manage statistics, nothing else. By speculating with shortages the statistics move and become measurable instruments of economies that live eventually a virtual life on its own without considering the human being or our natural universe itself. In fact, the way statistics move through artificial intervention of politicians and business people have created a simulated reality that interacts with our true reality and is even perceived to be real through the importance we give to money and material valuable. But it is all fake, even the poverty we see around us is fake simply because the statistics of our robotized systems do not allow people to create a new, self sufficient reality.
Belief means acceptance of change
None of the above provides any true progress because it is all based on commonly accepted truth and knowledge, but no belief in alternatives, simply because they do exist yet. That is why the quantum leap of human evolution will surprise us as it comes. When it happens it will extensively be studied by scientists and even open up new channels of knowledge development, just like financial analysts now know why the credit crisis occurred but back then never saw it coming.
Becoming a believer
People in a state of crisis experience the lack of support of the commonly accepted truth of the obsolete systems but cannot embrace change yet because it does not exist yet. They experience a crisis because securities are falling apart and are not replaced by new ones. They are challenged to think for themselves and accept change by stepping out of the structures in crisis and start deciding for themselves. Since this is extremely difficult for individuals who have taken the old truth for granted they tend to go to church and ask for a miracle. In reality people ask the universe to react by creating a renewal of the universal truth. They ask God but in fact they ask themselves to accept change. We are so used to external securities that we have learned to distrust our selves. People in search for spirituality are opening up for renewal of their faith in humankind and especially in themselves. They experience suddenly the warmth of friendship and social support, self leadership and significance. They become believers, not just in God, but especially in themselves.
I can describe the Global Shift, the transformation of humankind, and find opposition from all common human structures. If it does not exist it is not true. People fight collapse of existing systems simply because they do not have “belief” in letting go. The old systems are known, scientifically analysed and hence true. The new systems are in the world of beliefs without and proof of truth and hence without any guarantee for security. That is also why true progress is made by people who are only considered a genius when reality changes, proving them right in hindsight. Meanwhile they are always seen as a risk to the established truth and crazy, weird or clowns, despised by the systems and laughed at by the masses.
But only believers are truly progressive. They are prepared to see the invisible, to accept that truth is relative to our common acceptance but not at all reliable. Believers accept that other realities exist and set out to find them. They accept to be despised by the masses and ridiculed by the knowledgeable realizing that all those who react that way are locked up in their own prison of disbelief and a reality conditioned by their own limitations.
Even religious believers tend to create dogma’s around the unknown to enable to speak in name of God by creating limitations proper to the human world of “knowledge” rather than abundance of the miracle of the Universe and our adventure as a true believer in progress. If we belief in God we should accept the unknown as our evolutionary challenge to progress and science as simplified form of registering perceived truths until they prove wrong or reconfirmed. We are getting to a point that sustainable progress does not accept anymore virtual statistics as a reality nor scientific proof as absolute truth of knowledge.
Soon we enter an era (the quantum leap) where we accept the unknown as the only constant for our progress. The amount of crisis of the world of knowledge and statistics will be so big that the world will turn around believers who show a new reality, the reality of a humankind based on spirituality, on the belief in our evolutionary quest and eternity. Science will not be proof anymore of knowledge but a reflection of our progress by accepting the stepping up of our adventure by challenging knowledge against the unknown.
When we do that business, finance and politics will cease to exist because they will not be necessary anymore as fragmented human institutions. They will transform into key area of responsibility and related competences that interact to provide sustainable progress by addressing the unknown on a continuous basis. When that has happened we will refer to this a the quantum leap and even give it a scientific understanding leaving it in out past as a significant moment in time when humankind opened up to its own universal destiny.
Sustainable progress is hence assured by believers.
Recent articles refer to the graph of youth unemployment in Europe as “scary”. Indeed it is alarming to see that in Southern Europe around 50% of all youngsters between 16 and 24 have no perspective of making a living through any form of employment.
The key problem we face is that there is absolutely no relationship anymore between the basic human needs, values, employment and money. Industrial centralization of manufacturing and productivity to areas of high concentration of cheap labor or facilitating policies for volume related, highly automated activities have taken all basic responsibilities away from the general public. If we go back a few hundred years the main concern of every individual was to produce enough for self sufficiency. Most of our time was dedicated to food production. If we sum up today our basic needs: food, clothing, energy, water, shelter, mobility how much of our time is devoted to achieving it? Nothing! All these activities have been taken away from our daily concern from a labor perspective. We only have access to our basic needs through money, not through our energy or talent.
So where should the energy and talent of our populations go to if the basic needs have been taken away from us in centralized money processes of which we see nothing ourselves? There is nothing except the “care for each other”. Care is something that cannot be centralized as it affects us all directly. You cannot go to a shop and buy a pound of health care produced in China or India. The care taking needs to be done on a personal level. Even though care is needed it is not directly seen as a primary value. In many countries it is financially organized through means that come from primary production processes, i.e. a secondary economy that depends on the primary economy of productivity (the making industry), speculation (housing) and consumption. So if the primary economy fails no care can be financed either and unemployment rises.
But does that mean that people do not have any basic needs anymore nor the need for care? No, of course not. It simply means that we have learned to connect the wrong values to the money system. Europe opened up the borders to liberate the distribution of goods as a primary foundation of our economic progression. But these goods hardly contain European labor which means that there is no reciprocity between what we consume and what we personally contribute to our wealth. If there is no direct relation between our consumption and our labor where do the means come from to obtain them? Either by creating a primary economy of care that covers the expenses of the economy of goods and if this does not exist we create a debt for ourselves. From this point of view our debt evolution makes China grow in wealth because that is where the productivity takes place.
Our debt evolution has been camouflaged by keeping up speculation in the housing market and a booming business in real estate but this only covered a part of the economy while producing an economic bubble through speculative forces of banks and politics.
The solution is to be found in transforming our economies back into a direct connection between our individual needs and our productivity with our talents and available energy. This can start by accepting care, human health, vitality and education, not goods, as main value of society expressed in money. All the unemployed youngsters can find things to do in helping their own community into health, social cohesion and support receiving means back for it to sustain themselves. The second step is to become self-sufficient again in producing the basic needs, using modern technologies to provide abundance without centralization of productivity around the world. Food, water management and energy production become than again issues that keep us individually busy and disconnected from the large global dependencies. All people become then again aware of their own productivity related to the wealth we perceive and produce ourselves.
This transformation of the local economies is easily done if we allow ourselves to change our perspective of wealth from the “having” to the “being”. The opposition of course comes from the centralized power positions around goods and financial controls. To break through these impositions local governments have to step out of the economic grip of these systems and introduce new systems of human values that motivate their populations to invest their talents and energy in each other. This will cause a lot of old systems to go broke and stress will be high when the entire world based on old industrial process is forced to reallocate the resources and their own value systems. In between monetary systems will become obsolete and go broke. Large amounts of debt will be cancelled along the way by mere obsolescence of their existence. Since most of these debts are only related to a few in the old hierarchies of power they can be blamed of speculation over the back of humanity and punished by new laws that the new humankind will develop through this new paradigm.
When we look again at the graphics of youth unemployment in Europe time has come to make the transition. Local leaders would be wise to take the first step to show their commitment to their own people instead of luring still with the old hierarchies that are obsolete and already in the historic area of payback demands of humankind asking them to personally take responsibility for their leadership now and over the last few decades. Politicians and business executives would show signs of wisdom if they now choose side of humankind instead of money. That is probably why articles refer to the graphs as “scary” even though they indicate also the build up of frustration that will explode to make way of renewal. Those who let that happen knowing that peaceful alternatives are at hand already as described above, are also to be blamed when judgement day arrives. When we look back at ourselves today in ten years time, what will we see?
When we refer to a natural disaster we think of the destructive force of nature that affects life in a region (or even globally) tremendously. The famous meteorite that struck the Earth some 60 millions years ago somewhere in Mexico was such natural disaster. It caused such impact that all life forms larger than a mouse died as a consequence of the long term darkness, climate change, etc. It was the stroke of death for the dominant species of giant reptiles s.a. the dinosaurs and happened long before humankind appeared to do its thing. A tsunami, an earth quack, a massive storm, floods, a huge fire, a volcano erupting or even a combination of all, they can all be devastating for life and all fall in the category of natural disasters.
Can we call then humankind a natural disaster? In our behavior we destroy the habitat of other species, even cause them to go extinct for our own benefit. We destroy the landscape with roads, houses, cities, fields, etc. We pollute the soil, the air, the sea…. Does that make us a natural disaster? No, strangely it does not. Ants, beavers, cows, rats, whatever other species, also usage the landscape and environment for their benefit and if they have no natural enemies they grow in volume and destructive effects on the habitat of other species. We know by observation and experience that such effects eventually destroy their own long term survival.
Humankind is hence currently a normal natural parasite of the available resources that has out grown its own sustainable proportions in population and greed, reaching a point of becoming auto-destructive. It is as simple as that and can be seen around us all the time. A large tree for instance does not allow enough light to pass through its crown for other plants to grow underneath it. In this way it avoids that these would take resources from the soil that the tree would need. When that big tree get struck by lightning or falls over in a storm the light reaches again the soil and all kinds of species start developing and fighting for that little bit of space again until a certain harmony has been reached again. Even the chaos between the old stability of the old tree and the new stability of growing new fauna is orchestrated in nature to provide sustainable progress through natural dynamics.
Our globe is a natural ecosystem in which humankind is a simple species that makes its own nest so dirty that eventually it cannot survive anymore and disappears. Others take over and may even find evolutionary ways to use all the garbage left behind by humankind. We have seen this occur regionally already over history. The Lycians, Maya’s, Romans, large human cultures in the Amazon, Africa….all had their period of glory and then broke up into chaos to eventually become food for study of archaeologists.
We are part of the wisdom of our environment that adapts itself wisely with every change that occurs. Even humankind building cities is something nature deals with within the laws of nature, not those of the human beings. So why should we worry about our planet Earth, our universe or the other species when all they do is adjust to the circumstances? And if they don’t adapt they perish, like we will disappear if we do not adjust. We should hence really worry about ourselves. For once we can really become selfish as we start thinking of the evolutionary preservation of our species.
If we are so afraid of death that we invented even fake money systems to avoid conflicts and become addicted to material possessions, to compensate for the expectation of death arriving, we should be even more afraid if the species does not even exist anymore for those who believe in re-encarnation. The death of all deaths from any evolutionary perspective is that the line of evolution stops. Humankind will be forgotten the same day the last person collapses to disappear for ever. Is our current greed and desire for control worth all that? Apparently it is. It seems to be part of our nature to let our selfinterest florish whenever it gets a chance even if this means that our species, including our individual self, disappears. What a waste!
What caused so much self-destruction? The biggest problem humankind has developed, maybe as an accident of nature, is our self consciousness. It should be an accident of nature to give us such high level of self awareness because if it were an act of God we would surely be destined to use it differently. Becoming self conscious we were challenged to reflect about life, living and death, coming to an incredible array of beliefs, competitive behaviors and levels of understanding. We were challenged by the nature to self-reflect about everything and we received eternity to learn if we would be capable of putting our learning into practice. But are we?
From a biological point of view we are a parasite that is becoming aware of its existence and condition as a aggressive parasite and not as a super being. We are also becoming aware that we have the potential to become a super being if we let go of being a parasite. The biggest challenge humankind is facing today is to let go of being animal and become special by using awareness and consciousness for our own evolution. By making us consciously dependent again of our surroundings we can learn how to control our own progress. But are we all willing to make such sacrifice, to let our greed be locked up in favor of our evolutionary perspectives? Who seeks wellness in the future if we want it right now? Only today exists and tomorrow never comes.
Clearly, humankind is not a natural disaster. We are only a disaster to ourselves. We distinguish ourselves from the animal world with the doubtful gift of awareness. This is only a gift if it is used to position humankind in such a way that it places itself outside the unexpected effects of natural disasters, including our own self destructive attitude. But if we do that we need to do it all together and not just a handful. That is what I expect to happen in the end. In that case humankind would appear as a true miracle of nature. But for that humankind is not yet worthy of that denomination. For now we are still a risk to everything on earth, including our own selves.