It’s 7:38 in the morning of 22.7.2018, Marbella. I woke up early, at 4:30 and fifteen minutes ago I finished Praise of the future. Manifest for a critical awareness of species. It is a small format copy of 123 pages, published in February of this year by Arpa & Alfil, that I happened to meet the day before yesterday in the recently inaugurated Marbella’s summer fair book.
It’s been a while since I put Eudald Carbonell on the list of people to tell my ideas. I have some of his technical books in Madrid, and despite of admiring his work and his many knowledge, I do not remember having read something directly related to my ideas. That’s why I had “parked it” even though I brought his profile in case I decided to send him my book, or the Web page, this summer.
After reading his Manifest I’m going to try that he knows about my ideas and I’d love talking with him a long time. I hope I can do this before I turn eighty. He is twelve years younger than me and I guess he is very busy. But I think my ideas will interest him if, as it seems, he truly feels what he says in his book.
As I’m used to do, I read his “Praise of the future” through the glasses of my ideas and with my pencil on hand. I marked 50 pages to give them a deeper look and comment. I am not sure whether to comment on them now or leave them for later. Because there is so much to say and comment. The book’s objectives are very close to my ideas, I think my ideas are, or will be soon, memes or common places, which is logical because they are obvious and are within each Human being.
Coming back to Carbonell, his book has caused me a strange sensation, due to some excellent ideas common to scientist and good man, but are kind of mixed with political issues making the book somewhat messy for the absent minded.
But after carefully separating science from politics, I had a happy reading of Professor Carbonell’s ideas and intuitions that resembled mine. Although he has not discovered my basic idea, he notices its lack and has searched for it. I think he has come to the idea of survival of our species because of its obviousness and liability in his communist-humanist-international version. Or vice versa, it has been his communism-humanism-universal that has made him see the species, not the partial groups, as a necessary subject to make the revolution and reach for the ideal world without classes.
Keeping in mind my basic ideas, I will copy and comment some of his phrases, trying not to take them out of context:
Pg. 11.- If we do not know what do we want to be as a species in the future, past can no longer help us.
It starts well because he considers the species as a subject capable of knowing, of having a future and of needing help to know what to do. Namely, he does what almost no scientist do: to put the species as an active subject instead of considering it as a passive and random result of whatever its individuals do. It seems the same but it is a substantial difference.
This concept of species as active and passive subjects is the one that most scientists have objected to me. I have been told that it is a “construct”, incorrect expression popularized by Harari. I accept that it is a “construct”, but built by its own information or genetic programming and maintained by its own vital survival imperative. Imperative to survive as each one can within their “nature” and their environment.
P. 12. Says: The facts indicate that to a large extent we are already responsible for what happens to us as a species. And it refers to the advance of technology, climate change, inequality between human beings and the capacity for destruction. He seems to be moved not by the vital imperative, but by the sense of responsibility. Though he succeeds in assuming this responsibility, which he seems to call “critical consciousness of species.”
P.15. The great moment has arrived: Homo sapiens can now be the main character of his own history and it is not possible to avoid this mature and conscious species responsibility.
The phrase is wonderful and has made me happy remembering my discovery of Hans Jonas. I have to ask him if he knows him. Surely does, but I do not know if Professor Carbonell realizes that the Homo sapiens species has already been the protagonist of his story. What happens is that he does not know. So he considers its individuals and groups protagonists, and therefore it is not yet a mature species nor is aware that has that responsibility to live in order to become one.
Therefore, I believe that the first thing that a man has to know is that he is a species. That every man is mankind before anything else. That before, and in addition, of being Chinese, American, Catalan or French, he is mankind. And, because of that, his first and primary objective is for his species to survive: to be the protagonist of a story that we do not know “what’s about”. But in order to know and write it, we have to survive. Or at least try.
P. 16. He says: The first thing we have to solve is to determine what we want to be as humans, in order to proceed to its construction.
This phrase, apart form beautiful, has a lot of depth: He is right with the question, which then specifies when referring to our relations with the natural environment and many other facets of our history and our future. But that is not the first thing, the first thing is to be before being like. The second thing is that we can determine, once and for all what we want to be. I believe the first mater is to resolve what we must do now in order to continue being, and then to be able to “determine on the go” what we want to be.
I think that Professor Carbonell wants to say the same as me. But he skips a level, and like all philosophers and scientists until very recently, he works with the idea that there are and always exist men to be build. Although I think he has written the book because he realizes the seriousness and urgency of doing something different before the danger that we are going down a dangerous path for the very existence of Man.
I understand that his ideas and intentions, both excellent, would be more clear if he had separated and ordered his objectives, which I think are the same as mine: 1. That the species survives, as such or unfolded. 2. That all species individuals/people, current and to come, live well and as best as possible. 3. For the former idea, it is necessary to try to reach partial objectives in the different surroundings and cultures: peace, well-being, freedom, solidarity. 4. And for that it’s necessary to do things: political, scientific, philosophical, economic, technical, social… Global things and adapted to different groups, cultures, moments and circumstances.
P. 19. He talks about the Cuban missile crisis, and says that humanity became aware of the ability of humanity itself to destroy the planet.
It is a very important reflection, because until very recently men did not have that feeling of risk. Fear that has caused the concept of belonging to a globalized and interrelated humanity to increase. This idea of being part of the same fraternal humanity is expanding rapidly and “demands” ethics and policies adapted to this concept. And as I say in my books and writings, and concurring with Professor Carbonell, they do not have to be uniform and homogeneous for everyone. Men have been a group which coexists and works better integrated in in that way. I think that, for that reason, and in the face of a uniformal vision of global village, There have been reactions from collectives that prefer to live in smaller and more singular groups: the Brexit, Catalonia, the various European and American populisms and nationalisms, Trump… Which would be okey if these groups had a global vision and their “separate distinctness” would be better for them and their neighbors. But this is a contingent problem in the application of the Universal Ethical Principle. (See the Applications of my “Survive & Altruism” specifically point 14 on page 107 on” Nationalisms and other singularities “).
In one of his books, which I comment on mine, Edgar Morin says that we are still in the Iron Age of Humanity. And he starts counting from the Discovery of America. But Professor Carbonell is right about fear that could accelerate the process of men “humanization”. And to praise the assumption of our ideas. Amen.
Note. It is excusable to D. Eudald, for his native Catalan, the “eleventh” vs. elevent thesis on Feuerbach. Some Spanish speakers write the elevennth that is worse. I also make mistakes in my writings. And I appreciate that they tell me because they suppose they have read me and with some attention.
Pg. 20. Talks about the threshold concept and says: The idea of threshold is crucial. And adds: Now humanity is precisely at a threshold of a change of phase. (The DRAE says: Threshold: Initial or first part of a process or activity).
This idea is also very important and I think that is true. And Professor Carbonell relates it mainly to the population, its number and its well-being. And although he names 10,000 million as the ceiling to “naturally” arrive according to some experts, he says on page 26: …exponential growths are usually regulated in such a way that they end in extinction or in the disappearance of those that were more adapted.
For me, any global policy about what world and what humanity we want, must go through a previous analysis of the population, its distribution, characteristics, etc… So that, without traumas, nor physical or moral violence, and respecting personal freedom; human population, its well-being, migrations… could be globally and locally regulated, by optimizing, as far as possible, the capacity for survival as well as its individual and group well-being. The application is possible with the current technical and communication means. (See page 91 of “Survive and Altruism” about: The population. Number and quality of life).
On page 27 begins the chapter entitled “Future exists”. Everything is very important because he talks about the objectives or principles. Lists eight, the first of which, on page 29 is:
1.-The survival and reproduction of the species is necessary to be able to build new projects of humanity.
Right in the first part of the sentence, but like other humanists, Popes included, it is necessary to resort to a secondary objective (in this case: to be able to build new humanity projects) to justify the main one: The survival of the species. It is not necessary as he later says, survival is justified alone. It is a natural mandate and it is also the main primary objective. And even more for atheists or agnostics who do not contemplate other possible transcendent purposes.
In any case, Professor Carbonell has survival implicitly as a first priority. Which is also usual. But this not explicitly seeing and assuming the priority of the imperative to survive, is vital to the new threshold of humanity as well as to plan, from it, the future. If this is not done, or it is delayed, the problem will get worse. I trust in man and his conscience, even if it is conformed groupally. But there are serious risks and a lot of suffering for each day of delay. That is why I thank Professor Carbonell for his effort and his call for urgent action.
Page 32. Its very interesting the possibility of three different species of Man: the homo sapiens, current; the “emerged from profound biological and genetic modifications“; and Cyborgs.
These are very trendy issues. But they are easy to understand and judge. Our current duty is thet the first one survives: our current Homo sapiens species . Which, according to experts it will not naturally change to another species as long as it is able to adapt to the environment, or change it. In my previous writings and in response to some doubts that I was raised, I think a “natural” allopatric speciation is possible if a group of human beings live on other planets, or on space platforms. And they are adapting to different habitats, little by little or helped by genetic, epigenetic, cultural engineering…
The Ciborg thing is getting weirder. But it could be, necessary or convenient. . Qui vibra verra!! But to see we have to live. We have to survive. And to live is to live together as Ortega said. And to live together we have to count on others, with the alter, we have to be altruistic.
P. 42. It is about the competition between humans. And says: We no longer have a reason to compete to guarantee our survival. On the contrary, the principle of competitiveness can only lead to our own destruction.
Agree that competitiveness understood as struggle is bad. My second idea is that the best method to try to survive with well-being is broad altruism and collaboration. But I believe that the loyal competition that drives the individual improvement and the better adaptation of the tasks is good. I do not see that the class struggle exists or should exist. Nor do I believe that classes now exist in the sense of owners of the means of production vs. employees. The biggest owners and bosses today are the States, both capitalists and communists. And their assets and activities are managed by salaried employees. Capitalist companies are owned by many small shareholders and are also run by employees. Like the companies in the communist countries. In any case, each case should be reviewed with the criteria of the new Universal Ethical Principle, both teleological and deontological. Communism, like capitalism, has many material and spiritual aspects and can be applied in very different ways depending on the case.
P. 57. Says that without a basic theory and concrete objectives, pragmatism will only serve us in a conjunctural way. And enunciates some values such as empathy, solidarity, sociability… But I think he realizes that these values are insufficient and can be, also, understood and applied in many different ways.
For my part I am clear that the assumption of the basic idea and broad altruism are the best option. Although it takes some time to be fully operational. But there are already many activities, individuals and collectives, that act according to the Universal Ethical Principle, even without being explicit. The problem is non-altruism, or wrong-selfishness between groups and collectives. That will be resolved when there is an awareness of all humanity as a group, composed of groups that live together in solidarity.
On p.64 Deals with the relationship with nature and the environment, and says: Instead of being remembered as the era of great destructions and changes on the planet, the Anthropocene should go down in history as the period of our reconciliation with nature, as a conscious expression of organic evolution.
Completely agree. In Survival and Altruism I speak of a human ecology (see page 96) that must be framed in the rest of possible applications of the basic idea. Above all, of the population, economic and social policies. Counting, as Professor Carbonell says with the historical acceleration of technological and scientific capabilities.
On page 66 begins the chapter entitled: “The obligation to survive” Where he gives several reasons to justify this obligation. Reasons that I do not believe scientists accept as proof of that obligation, but in any case reinforce my basic idea that I think is more “scientific”. Professor Carbonell quotes several reasons to justify the obligation to survive:
“The adventure of life allows us to know ourselves as humans and to recognize ourselves as such in the natural environment and in the historical environment… our commitment to species is established on the principles that have led us here…”
It seems to be based on the need for this humanizer process to continue.
“…we are the only species that has survived natural selection… We are alone… we must understand the species in its cosmic dimension (Reminds me of Teilhard).
On p. 68 sees religion as a defensive posture against human rationality. And he adds that what there is, is simply evolution.
Another poetical explanation in the same page: “It all comes down to survival, a message from space that time has sent through the organization of matter and energy, and that gives us another explanatory possibility “.
And in 69: “Surviving is the seminal issue and the strategic objective of all organism and therefore also of the species “.
He has no qualms or reticence in uniting and matching the objective of the organisms with that of his species. He is very clear, as I am, as it is and should be: The objective of any Barcelona player, as such, is to win the game: it is the same as the team’s “. Regardless of whether each player, as an individual /person, can have, as their own goals, being very rich and getting together with some awesome lady. The reductionism of seeing people only as individual individuals, free and independent of everything else, natural or transcendent, has been the first or one of the main causes of lack of solidarity. And of not seeing my ideas (It’s been the most objected argument to me).
And then on the same page: The struggle for survival is earlier in our genes that in social behaviors. I do not know if it refers to individual survival or that of the species or both. But it’s okay. And then rivets: Perpetuate the species is, for our complex consciousness, in addition to a natural law, an obligation .
And on page 70 says:
Therefore, survival is the most important thing to be able to develop an species consciousness and be able to evaluate over time this experiment of the cosmic evolution that we humans are on the planet. Without thinking about the future, it would be impossible to establish the series of procedures that we have to carry out in the present. And he continues: Between these procedures are the control of the growth of the human population and our habitat expansion.
He then says: Reproducing ourselves as rats or rabbits had a sense of survival in a time of scanty demographics, but it no longer has. As for space and energy, he seems to believe that they are conditioning factors that can be managed.
On pages 73 to 77 deals with “The social benefit” and says among other things:
“Hundreds of years of evolution have allowed us to value the importance of the social in our construction as a species. Hence, making a leap in history, we come to consider that the socialization of the means of production can lead us to a great evolutionary leap”.
Right in the first paragraph since our species is social by nature and necessity. And the second part of the paragraph is operative.
On pages 78 to 82 deals with “The collectivity of individuals” and talks about its political ideas. And among other things it says:
“On the basis of conscious progress, human beings must renounce the exploitation of our fellow human beings, because social construction of a future can not be conceived without a large part of the species not participating in it and its benefits”
The phrase mixes several and very diverse concepts and objectives, but I think it can be translated in that the best method to survive is coexisting with a shared well-being. As I have said in my writings, although there may be other more effective methods, this seems to be, at the same time, the most effective and the most efficient.
From page 83 to the end deals with very interesting but operational aspects. As a summary I copied the last sentence:
“Knowing and thinking is an effort we must make among all, among all those who really want to be human.” Excellent recommendation Get working!
Marbella, the 20.11 of 23.7.2018. Reviewed on 10.8.18