Survival and altruism. A universal principle of ethics
José Corral Lope
See C.V. El Autor
Summary
It is stated as a priority vital objective of all human beings, the survival of our species / humanity. With broad altruism as the main means. From this follows a universal ethical principle. These ideas and their applications are compared with the goals of the UN 2030 Agenda and those of the Pope’s Encyclical Fratelli tutti.
17 applications of the universal ethical principle are reviewed, referring to: A World Authority. The humanity. Review the laws and regulations. The model of world society. The population: number and quality of life. Sexuality and the family. Human ecology. Genetic engineering. Social engineering. The education. Economic and social policies. The marginal and poor. Religions. Nationalisms. Crimes and misdemeanors against Humanity. Universal virtues and values. Individual ethics.
Keywords: objective, imperative, vital, ethical, universal, survival, altruism. Agenda 2030, UN, encyclicals, humanity.
Agenda 2030, UN, encyclicals, humanity.
0.Exposition
In the presentation of Surviving and Altruism. A universal principle of ethics, I state that the book is written for the three groups to whom I also direct this note:
a).- Thinkers. Especially philosophers and biologists.
b).- Civil and religious authorities, politicians, businessmen, communicators.
c).- All people interested in human survival and well-being.
The aforementioned book states and develops three ideas:
1st.- My basic idea is that human beings, like all living beings, have the survival of our species / humanity as a priority vital purpose (See Monod).
This goal, and the imperative to try, are implicit and operative in our genetic and cultural programming. Without prejudice to the fact that men can have other transcendent purposes.
2nd. – Broad altruism (instinctive, reciprocal, pure) is the main quality practiced and assumed by our social species to achieve the basic objective. At the same time, like other biological species, it uses struggle, competition and other strategies to attempt its own survival and control of the environment.
3rd. From the first idea, a basic norm of behavior is directly deduced that, for humans, rational and moral beings, can be made explicit as a universal ethical principle (UPE) that says: What is good is good / better / better for survival of our species / humanity.
Despite their obviousness, and perhaps because of it, these ideas are neither explicit nor assumed. Our situation and perspectives make it urgent that they be known by the greatest number of people of the aforementioned groups. Its assumption and application should facilitate understanding between civil and religious leaders. And with this, accelerate the adoption of more effective and efficient measures that help solve the serious problems of our humanity.
Although the questions are very broad, I will try to make a summary, comparing the coincidences and differences between thinkers, civil leaders and religions.
1.-Current situation
In my professional experience, in order to analyze problems and propose solutions it is very important that the goal or priority objective to be achieved is clear. If it is acted on by tasks or by partial objectives, it is possible that the main goal will be reached, but it is usually more expensive and slower. And there is a risk that some partial task or objective is seen as the main objective, has excessive success, and makes it difficult to achieve the priority objective or objective.
It is very possible that our humanity has had and still has this problem. Although it may seem strange, and despite calling ourselves Sapiens, our species has come this far without having its main objective explicit: survival itself. And without expressly knowing that their individuals / persons, and the species itself, have the priority duty of conserving and transmitting the greatest good they have: human life.
Men have acted in increasingly numerous groups: families, tribes, clans, nations, … But without having yet made explicit the basic law of survival. Our social species has survived having implicit in its individuals, as the basis of its behavior, the vital imperative. And this mandate has been the foundation of the objectives, strategies and norms that different human groups have used to survive. And to develop their enormous capacities, virtues and values. And also, some defects and sins: original and acquired.
Historically we can distinguish two types of groups: vertical (family, clan, tribe, city, nation, …) and horizontal (ideologies, organizations, religions, political parties, powers that be, …). The ability to form larger and larger groups has been made possible through the use of some form of broad altruism as a means of coexistence.
All in all, our human species has been enormously successful when measured by the current population size. The problem that seems to arise is that this enormous capacity for growth can lead to the self-destruction of the species, either in the short term by the use of weapons of mass destruction, or in the medium term by the degradation of our habitat. And in any case, although many people have a high level of well-being, serious problems of all kinds remain for many hundreds of millions of people.
To try to appreciate the problem caused by the lack of a priority objective that is universal and explicit, I try to summarize, almost by way of example, the main aims or objectives, and the means to achieve them, of the most significant groups.
a). -The thinkers
In the West it has been mainly the philosophers, from the Greeks until now, (See) who have sought the first objective or finality of men. According to their own recognition, none of them have found it. But they have proposed various ends or partial objectives and the means to try to achieve them. Three schools can be highlighted, whose doctrines are still operational and in force:
. For Aristotle the most perfect good is happiness. And although he says that the good of the city is greater than that of the individual, he equals them. And it says that the good of man is an activity of the soul according to virtue, and if the virtues are various, according to the best and most perfect. And consider that the happy man lives well and works well.
. Kant says that men and peoples act insensibly following a hidden intention of Nature, which he does not know and which he orders to find other philosophers. As an objective he points to eudemonism, or continuous moral progress. And this objective must be tried to achieve using the moral sense that each one has and through the use of their reason. And with good will to apply the categorical imperative that your reason dictates.
The material part of men does not concern him, nor life in general, since it expressly says that Man is immortal. But it is endearing to see the high value it places on moral improvement and the cosmopolitanism of the human species.
. For utilitarians – Bentham, Stuart Mill – the goal is to achieve the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people. This more modern idea corrects Aristotelian individualism and specifies the Kantian categorical imperative.
These objectives and means are still in force in Western culture: the basic objective is happiness based on the well-being of individuals and with it that of their nations. And the means to achieve this are individual and social virtues and values: industriousness, honesty, solidarity, justice, cooperation, equality, freedom, fraternity…
Both happiness and well-being are good goals and the aforementioned means are also good. But they are partial. And they have the problem that they are impossible, or very difficult to apply to everyone. And there is the difficulty of determining, and limiting where appropriate, what individual happiness and well-being is. And even if an average well-being can be established, it is difficult to achieve and maintain it for a growing number of people.
And recently the most serious problem has arisen: although thanks to science and technology Malthus’s predictions are not being fulfilled, the growing need for resources, to meet the growing demand for greater well-being of a growing number of people, has created the danger of degrading our habitat to the possibility of self-destruction in the medium term. Without reaching the minimum well-being of hundreds of millions of people
. Some biologists (see) have also dealt with the purpose of living beings and their species, mainly from the representatives of the so-called modern theory of evolution (Dobzhansky, Mayr, Gould). And more recently and expressly the aforementioned Nobel laureate, Jacques Monod. But without extending his ideas to humans. Some of these biologists have already seen different types of altruism as a means for the survival of social species.
And although the “sociobiologist” E.O.Wilson does not make survival explicit as an objective, it seems that he has it implicit when, based on the altruism of the Hymenoptera, he raises his famous proposal to “biologize” ethics. And neither does Michael Ruse.
Scholium. Modern neurobiologists try to see a purpose and moral standards in the brain. And they do well to look for it there, because in the successive “layers” they will discover contingent norms, among them altruism, that men have been assuming. And when they get to the bottom of it, they will find the basis of behavior: the vital imperative that commands each individual to live and to try to make sure that his species survive so that Life continues.
b). -The UN and other civic organisms.
The explicit priority objective of the UN, and of other various organizations and entities, is the same as that of the utilitarian philosophers, that is, to achieve the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people.
This basic objective has been addressed and manifested in recent decades in multiple meetings and writings. Recently, the 25.9.2015 is specified in the Resolution of the General Assembly entitled: “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. That confirms 17 objectives and 169 goals that constitute the “Plan of action in favor of people, the planet and prosperity”.
This year 2021, at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and on the occasion of COVID-19, “The Great Reset” and the advancement of the 2030 Agenda were announced.
c). – Religions.
Men have developed many beliefs and religions that have determined, and continue to propose, a priority objective or maximum Good and the norms or precepts to try to achieve it. In general, religions, like philosophers, consider the spiritual part of human beings.
Despite their spirituality, all religions have legislated on the norms of individual and social behavior in this world, dictating what must be thought, done and omitted to try to achieve the transcendent End or Good. In general, they profess common moral values that can be summarized in the so-called golden rules: “Do good and not evil” and “Do not do to anyone what you do not want them to do to you.” But, in addition to the inconcretion of these precepts, there are differences between them on the partial objectives and the norms to be fulfilled.
Its estimated worldwide distribution: Christian 30%, Islam 20%, Hinduism 15%, Buddhism 6%, traditional Chinese religion 4%, other religions and beliefs 10%, and non-religious 15%. I highlight the most significant differential aspects of the main religions, as they affect what is discussed in this note:
. For the religions of the Bible the Highest Good is Eternal Life in Heaven or Paradise. And for this the basic precepts are love of God and neighbor. And common to all three is the mandate of Genesis: “Grow and multiply and fill the Earth.” This law, almost coinciding with the vital imperative, has been the one most obeyed by believers as it is implicit in our nature.
. For other religions and wisdoms, the objectives or ends of man are various. But in general, they do not consider the survival of humanity. They are spiritual goals. And the virtues and values to achieve them are usually within the aforementioned principles of doing good and not evil: to others and other living beings.
In Hinduism: The goal is nirvana and as moral norms two phrases can be highlighted: “The man who practices the religion of universal non-harm conquers the greatest Good.” And: “the man who considers all creatures as his own himself achieves the triumph”
For Buddhism the goal is also nirvana, and moral standards can be summarized as non-violence, altruism, benevolence and compassion.
The rest of religions and doctrines propose different ends and virtues but not the survival of the species.
Extensive note: I believe that Christianity is the closest to basic ideas now. In addition to the aforementioned precept of Genesis, by the express mandate of its founder and by name, the Catholic Church has the vocation to preach love to all humanity.
Recently, the 2004 “Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church” collects the most significant of its doctrine on the questions of social, economic and political life. And it highlights the importance of moral values to face globalization, ecology, the unity of the human family, the poor …
The problem is looking for “objective moral values capable of uniting men.” For this, that same year, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, with the consent of Pope John Paul II, commissioned the work to the International Theological Commission. In December 2008, when he was already Pope Benedict XVI, the resulting document was approved under the title: “In search of universal ethics: a new way of seeing natural law.” The document confirms the value of natural law, says that the Church does not have a monopoly on its interpretation and proposes a dialogue “with experts and spokespersons of the great religious, wisdom and philosophical traditions (…) to reach a common recognition of universal moral norms “. The proposal does not bear fruit and there is still no common explicit universal ethic. See “Religions”
d). -Political leaders, entrepreneurs, communicators…
To my knowledge, none of these groups have the express objective of the survival of humanity. In general, their objectives are the benefit of those who compose or direct them. A benefit that, if they acted well, they should obtain by giving good services to the society in which they operate, thereby indirectly contributing to the well-being of humanity. And to increase their ability to survive.
The leaders of this group apply, or must apply, the moral principles and norms defined by the thinkers and rulers. Those who, as we have seen, do not seek the basic objective as a priority. And there can also be problems when the owners or managers put their benefit before the service of society and when they “create” and apply inadequate “moral” norms that benefit them: themselves or the groups they serve or belong to: vertical or horizontal.
e). -The people
All human beings have the vital imperative implicit and are programmed to participate in the iterative reproduction of our species. That is our vital purpose. By not knowing and not taking these ideas into account, there are still doubts about the meaning of life and about the motivations for our behavior.
In accordance with the above, humans, like all living beings, will tend to do what they have programmed at birth, and what their environment proposes and allows, to try to fulfill the vital imperative. Looking for your happiness with it. And using the growing human capacities and the enormous freedom that our species has.
When the inherited nature and environment of people are in accordance with the vital imperative, men will tend to make their acts good for the basic goal and thus be happy. And with this the good gene pool of the species is fed back.
Bad behavior occurs if people, because of their heritage, their environment, their ignorance, or their own bad will, do not behave according to the universal ethical principle. And generally, these bad behaviors produce harm and unhappiness: to the actors and to their neighbors. And with it to humanity.
2.- Summary of the ideas about ends or objectives
As we have seen, although we have it implicit and it is operative, the survival of our species does not appear as an explicit end or objective in the doctrines, laws and moral norms of the most significant groups of humanity.
I think that, for our purposes, the different positions can be summarized as follows:
a). – Those of the UN and the like that assume the objective of philosophical utilitarianism and in their programs advocate the material well-being of all men. This objective is the one that appears in the many resolutions adopted by the UN and its Agencies since its creation. As we have said, the latest is the 2015 one on the 17 Goals of the 2030 Agenda. Updated at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, January 2021, with the attendance of more than 1,500 world leaders, including those from China and the India that make up a third of the world’s population.
b). – Biblical religions propose Eternal Life as the supreme Good. And as an earthly end or objective they have historically assumed the mandate of Genesis of: Grow and multiply and fill the Earth. And to try to fulfill it they have dictated and kept its precepts and commandments. They also admit and support the UN welfare goal and the 17 points of the 2030 agenda, except for some aspects of goals 3 and 5 referring to sexual and reproductive health.
The Encyclical Fratelli tutti of October 3, 2020 of Pope Francis coincides for the most part with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda. And it quotes the Orthodox Patriarch and the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb and the Document on Human Brotherhood for World Peace and the common coexistence resulting from their meeting in Abu Dhabi on 4.2.2019.
c) The rest of religions, ideologies, groups and human collectives, have or admit social and group well-being as the main material objective of men.
3.The basic ideas and their applications
It seems that, once the priority vital objective has been seen and known, it would be necessary to try to apply the universal ethical principle to the behavior of humanity, its groups and all people.
In the booklet cited at the beginning, I list 17 possible applications based on the objective of survival and the welfare of the species. They can be seen in Tasks. Applications and Utilities of the web page. I am going to state them now trying to compare them with the objectives of the UN and the main issues of the last encyclicals.
I notice in my writings, and I repeat now, my inability to express an opinion on the questions I raise. My contribution is the basis of a universal ethic to, based on it, analyze the problems of our species / humanity and the possible actions to be taken to try to solve them. The work of rethinking the problems and possible solutions in light of the explicit universal ethical principle is left to the wise and expert.
0.Exposition
As I have said, I assume that the primary vital objective is the survival of our species. I said in my book that a first job would be to make a list of the negative factors that can affect our survival. In other words, a list of the most significant natural and human risks.
For my part, I noted as natural risks to anticipate and mitigate: large earthquakes, meteorites, climate changes, harmful gases …. And as negative human factors: weapons of mass destruction, global warming and pollution, consumerism, overpopulation, sins against humanity …
I have recently seen a Global Risks 2021 report from the World Economic Forum. It deals with the risks in detail up to 10 years and is influenced by the Covid-19 pandemic. As permanent risks, it highlights pandemics, climate change, man-made environmental damage, weapons of mass destruction. And as major pending problems: poverty and inequality, social unrest and disillusionment, geopolitical tensions, loss of biodiversity, the crisis of natural resources and livelihoods, economic fragility, digital inequality …
In the encyclicals Laudate si and Fratelli tutti the same or similar risks and problems are enunciated: pollution and climate change, loss of diversity, poverty and inequality, lack of a project and common direction, pandemics, consumerism, the discarding of the marginalized, violence and the threat of wars. In the Abu Dhabi document of 4.2.2019 signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib, the following stand out: wars and conflicts, environmental degradation, cultural and moral decay, injustices and inequalities, poverty and hunger. And they condemn life-threatening practices.
As I have said, I am going to state the 17 applications cited in my book as questions to rethink based on the survival objectives of the species. And as an example I compare the application of this “new” universal ethics with those of the UN and the biblical religions, especially the Catholic which is the one I know best and which I believe has made its position on these issues explicit in more detail.
1.-A global authority
In my book I propose the convenience of there being a “good” World Authority that assumes the basic objective and takes care, in the way that it deems best, to ensure that our species / humanity survives with the greatest possible well-being.
It said then, and the latest encyclicals have confirmed it, that the Popes support this idea. And I have also seen it expressed or implicit in various groups. It also suggested that this task could be done by the UN. At this time, I confirm those ideas. Even with the risks of excessive dirigisme that it entails.
If the purpose of our species is its own survival, all living men at all times therefore have a priority duty to try. And it seems clear that, on behalf of all, there must be someone who is in charge of studying and proposing the resulting common moral standards applicable to all humanity. And also, to establish and clarify the universal principles that underpin the group ethics of the different cultures. Respecting your basic beliefs.
If this task is not carried out in a unified way, it will continue to be done as a group by partial entities, increasingly more powerful. With its own goals that may not coincide at all with the global goal of humanity. Like now.
It seems that the most practical and easy thing would be to create at the UN, or under its patronage, a working group that would analyze the basic ideas and see their application. The group could be made up of UN experts, representatives of the main religions, countries, cultures, organizations and ideologies. This group could be the embryo of a World Ethics Council with advisory functions. And executives if empowered in the future.
In any case, I believe that people, organizations, universities, foundations, etc., experts and interested in these ideas, should see them, judge their veracity and usefulness, and act accordingly.
2.-The idea of humanity
The rational idea of humanity as a subject is very recent. But in recent years, awareness has grown that the world is global and that what some do affects the rest. The recent pandemic has highlighted the unity of Sapiens. And the concept of humanity as a subject is used more and more expressly. An idea that, generally, has been implicit but not acting.
The 2030 Agenda speaks of “We are determined to liberate humanity from the tyranny of poverty and deprivation and to heal and protect our planet.” In this sentence is humanity as a subject: acting in the “We are resolved” and later, expressly cited, as a beneficiary subject to be freed from its evils.
The Church, since Jesus, has referred to humanity as a group of brothers who are sons of the same heavenly Father. In the Fratelli tutti, Pope Francis now refers to humanity as a biological subject since he considers men: “as a single humanity, as walkers of the same human flesh, as children of this same earth that shelters us all”, And it is based on this brotherhood to propose and preach brotherly love. And to ask to improve the well-being of all brother men and the care of the land that shelters us, us and those who will come.
Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks of “Working together to build a community of shared future for humanity.” Although it does not expressly say so, it seems that it has, like the UN, a community subject to a shared future.
But no one explicitly appeals to the species / humanity as the full, active and beneficiary subject of the law of survival. They are counting on it implicitly but not explicitly citing it: I suppose it’s because they haven’t seen it. Or they have not realized the importance of doing it and applying it. If they had known and used it, their call would have much more force. And his actions more successful.
In any case, since our species exists, we have managed to survive and improve our well-being, acting without knowing it as fraternal humanity, as better or worse brothers. But now it seems convenient that the implicit command is made explicit and used. It is no longer the UN, or the Pope, or the president of China, who propose objectives, goals and tasks to men. We have the mandate within each of us. As an anecdote, the Americans also have it on their coins: “E pluribus unum”. Although it refers to the 13 independent colonies.
3.-Review norms, laws, uses and customs.
The basic idea is not just a theoretical law. It is an imperative mandate. And it forces each and every man and all humanity. And most men, since the species existed, have obeyed this command successfully. That is why we are here. And they obeyed him without expressly knowing it. Although, due to this ignorance, many times men have done things that are detrimental to the survival of the species.
Now that it is known, it seems that it would be necessary to review the norms, laws, precepts, uses, fashions, trends, etc. with the “new” ethics. in force. Starting with those that can have the greatest effect on the most serious risks and problems that the species / humanity has. And also apply this principle in the new laws and regulations.
For the UN, the first thing to review and adapt would be the Declaration of Human Rights. Making our obligations clear first. And that the rights we have to live as well as possible are to be able to better fulfill our vital duties. And from there review the Resolutions in force.
The religions would have to revise the precepts that most significantly affect their believers and the rest of the men in their social, economic and political life. It is very likely that when reviewing these civic precepts with the criteria of the PEU, aspects that already present problems with the environment will be revealed, especially with the moral norms and civil laws of other religions and cultures. It is a task to be carried out in what is best possible: for the good of the religions themselves, of their faithful, and of the rest of the world. Slowly but as soon as possible.
States, regions, cities … and civil organizations and companies can begin to review their laws and regulations as soon as they know and accept the universal ethical principle. In what they think is convenient and possible.
Note: On page 339 of my “Survive. Ideas for a universal ethics” is the draft of a possible “Universal Vital Manifesto” to be signed by the nations or by the UN on their behalf. See where appropriate. This book is not translated into English.
4.-The model for a global society
Our species / humanity lives today grouped in 193 UN member states and 26 various unrecognized entities. They live with the aforementioned religions and moral norms and with varied uses and customs by regions, races, cultures…. All this is the result of historical group actions, without a global planning of the entire human species. And although there have been great empires, there has not been a total one.
Borders, religions, uses, customs, … and the lack of a common objective and ethical basis, have been, and are, the cause of wars and conflicts. With the knowledge and assumption of the universal ethical principle, it seems convenient to think about the model of society that seems best for the survival of humanity and the well-being of all. To illustrate the case, one can think with Aldous Huxley from “Brave New World” to “The Island.” Or from Orwell’s “1984” to Santo Tomas Moro’s Utopia.
For my part, I think it is good that, as now, there is a diversity of nations with the laws, religions, uses and customs that best suit their circumstances. Although the universal ethical principle should be common as the foundation of its ethics and group laws.
That is, they must have all the conscience and the will to belong to humanity. And exercise broad altruism as a basis for relationships with other groups, both vertical and horizontal. Tending to suppress large armies and heavy weapons.
Disputes over borders, religions, nationalisms, etc. they should be resolved by the World Ethics Council. Who should also advise on the possible changes to be made in the model: to improve it and to adapt it if necessary to modifications of the habitat. For example, to mitigate natural disasters: earthquakes, floods, cyclones, rising seas, … or avoid large concentrations, historical conflicts, etc.
This application could include the problems that the Pope cites when speaking of nationalisms and uprooting (9 to 14) wars and walls (25 to 28) migrants (37 to 41) subjugations (51 to 53) the organization of the world (128 to 153).
And some of the UN objectives of points 6,7,9,10,11,15 and 16: on water, energy, infrastructure, inequalities, human settlements, the use of ecosystems, promoting societies peaceful and inclusive …
Added. It seems that, currently, “the theme of our time” is to think about the global role of the US, China and Russia. And try to see the future of the countries in their areas of influence and the rest of the world. This great question would have to be seen already with the glasses of the basic idea.
I believe that assuming the basic ideas, and developing the applications that I enunciate in this note, is essential for the internal well-being of all countries and to maintain a true peace, without tension, between large and small nations. With this idea, the world would be a great system, made up of diverse entities with the common goal of surviving with the greatest possible well-being. Taking care of this Earth and looking, slowly but surely, other possible places to go to live when necessary.
On the other hand, they say that what unites the most is having a common enemy. It seems that our common enemy is the hostility of the environment. But it is possible that also, here and now, “the enemy is ourselves.” Due to the lack of having an explicit common objective that encourages the union to use the environment well and prevent it from becoming uninhabitable.
If we see and assume the basic idea as the explicit common goal, anything bad for survival will be our enemy. And fighting it is what can unite us. It will be our enemy that causes our destruction and suffering. And friend what favors our survival and well-being. The pandemic has made it current for us. With the knowledge of the basic ideas we can take advantage of what has been suffered to learn to avoid or mitigate, together, other current and foreseeable calamities.
5.-Population.Quantity and quality of life
The universal ethical principle can provide an effective basis for rethinking these issues. The problem is very important and I believe that it is the cause of the greatest differences between the UN and the biblical religions.
For my part I summarize what I say in my quoted little book (pp. 91 to 94): It is possible that the current population and the one resulting from the lower growth forecast until 2050 (about 9,500 million) can be fed. But in this period, and afterwards, there will continue to be serious ecological problems and enormous deficiencies in the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people.
In my opinion, with current and predictable science and technology, we should aim for the population in 2050 to be at best somewhat less than it is today: around 7 billion. And in four or five more generations, try to reduce it to between 2000 and 4000 million as optimal figures: for the habitat and for a minimum well-being of the people alive at all times.
Until then, it would be necessary to tend towards greater austerity for those who can do it: individuals and the richest groups and countries. Especially reducing the consumption of goods and services whose obtaining and use causes greater damage to the environment. And the poorest people and countries must assume their obligations: to themselves, to their groups and to humanity. Helped, as much as possible, by the richest.
As is well known, since the so-called Kissinger report of 1974, increasing measures have been adopted, with more or less discretion, to reduce the birth rate. At the 1975 UN Conference in Mexico it is said that: “Every couple and every individual have the right to freely and responsibly decide whether or not to have children and to determine their number and spacing, as well as to receive information, education. and means to do it”. And in the operative part, it urges governments to:” Make available to all the necessary information and advice and adequate facilities and services with easy access to allow women who so wish to decide about the number and spacing of their children and, even more, to prepare young people for responsible parenthood”.
The “right to decide” and “adequate services” include, euphemistically, the use of artificial contraceptives, the liberalization of abortion and sexual training. Since then, the UN and other entities have developed and financed permanent campaigns in this regard. China adopted the one-child policy in 1979 and, although there was some social rejection, they had no moral problems to implement their tough policy.
Biblical religions reject these measures for two main reasons: The first is that reducing the birth rate implies going against the Genesis mandate to “grow and multiply”, which is the basis of their social and moral norms. And secondly, abortion is considered an attempt on life, which is sacred to these religions. I believe that the basic ideas force a rethinking of these issues on both sides: the UN and the religions. And by scientists, philosophers and theologians, who should also re-study them.
On the part of the religions it seems that the mandate of Genesis should apply in its entirety. In the versions I have it says: Grow and multiply and fill (or fill) the Earth. Possibly the Earth is already full, overstuffed, and overcrowded. Both of human beings and of things made by them.
Note. The DRAE says: full, na. 1.Occupied to the limit or by a large number of people or things. Henchir. 1. Fill a space to its limit, fill. And fill. 3. Give someone something in abundance. II 4. Fully satisfy desires, aspirations, etc.
Genesis also commands man to take care of what was created. This idea and that the Earth is already too full and overflowing with men, it seems that it should lead the theologians of the three religions to reinterpret the mandate and its application.
In Christianity, Anglicans already practice responsible parenthood using artificial contraceptives. The Catholic Church admits responsible parenthood and the use of natural methods to avoid fertilization, but in 1968 Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae expressly prohibited the use of artificial contraceptive methods. And it condemns abortion in all its circumstances.
In Islam there are different positions on the use of contraceptives, but on these issues, it seems more open than the Catholic Church. It condemns abortion in general but allows exceptions for the health of the mother and others, according to more or less “orthodox” interpretations. The biggest problem with Islam is that it still regards having children as a divine blessing. And they seem to be trying to spread their religion by growing in number. On the contrary, I believe that many imams already realize the risk of overpopulation for the countries where they are the majority and the difficulties to live together, in any environment, without separating religious from civil norms.
As for the UN and the like, I think they should limit the practice of abortion and euthanasia to extreme and exceptional cases. They are very crude and ineffective methods for population reduction and cause much scandal and suffering. And abortion is an inefficient and traumatic means of preventing pregnancies for young women. As we will see later, sexual relations and the family model must also be rethought in light of the explicit universal ethical principle.
In any case, I think the important thing is that, now, all the affected parties have a common basis to rethink their positions and to reach agreements. As I have said somewhere, the universal ethical principle disempowers the “creators” of moral uses and norms and reduces the field of subjective relativisms and precepts. This limitation may not appeal to many, but we have the implicit law within us. That is increasingly manifested in more “pro new ethics” attitudes in more countries and cultures. And for believers it is part of the natural law dictated by God.
6.-Sexuality, family, procreation
These issues are closely related to the previous point. The beliefs, laws and customs of people and groups on these matters totally influence the volume of the population and their quality of life: material and spiritual.
Since the middle of the last century, the UN and other people and entities have promoted greater sexual freedom, family models different from the traditional ones, the work of women, and other methods for their policy of reducing pregnancies. At the same time, these measures increased the production capacity, the consumption of goods and the so-called “empowerment” of women. All this “politically correct” and profitable.
Together, these measures and the development of science and technology have achieved two effects: great successes in the growth of the total population with an increase in their average material well-being, but creating new problems by reducing the population growth rates of the countries. rich countries and increase those of poor countries.
And it seems that the worst effect is that population growth, coupled with average consumption per person, has caused serious problems for the environment. On the other hand, by changing social practices and the values and virtues related to sexuality and the family, serious problems of excess hedonism, individual dissatisfaction and social disorientation have also arisen.
I believe that it is inevitable to separate sex from procreation, but it seems that it should be done while preserving the family values that have been the basis of societies and human groups. At least until other better “virtues” are discovered and settled. And, in any case, respecting as much as possible the moral and civic norms of the different groups and cultures.
These questions are enormously broad and complex. And they must be analyzed with the ethical principle as a basis within the set of objectives and actions contained in the rest of the applications. But personally, I believe that the monogamous and permanent family model is effective and efficient and has many virtues and values: for sexuality and to give cohesion to the couple and the group. And for the care and education of children in altruism / love: for their happiness and for the well-being of themselves and their environment.
This is one of the most important points to rethink in light of the basic objective and broad altruism / love as a means. And to dialogue to reach common ethical standards, within the diversity of cultures and beliefs.
Both the UN and the like, as well as religions, ideologies and beliefs attach enormous importance to these issues:
The 2030 Agenda specifically addresses the objectives: 3. On health and well-being and 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Although it is a controversial issue, and perhaps for that reason, the Fratelli tutti only dedicates paragraph 23 to it, where it says that: “the organization of societies throughout the world is still far from clearly reflecting that women have exactly the same dignity and identical rights as men”.
For Islam, sexuality, family, the role of women and fatherhood are very important. In Chinese, Hindu, and many African cultures, the values and criteria at these points are basic to group and species survival and well-being.
The universal ethical principle would provide religions and cultures with a basis on which to rethink contingent aspects of their beliefs that could go against the basic ideas of survival and well-being with altruism / love as a means.
7.-Human ecology
There are still doubts and discussions about whether ecology should prioritize man, other species, the natural environment, the entire Earth, … The basic ideas clarify and unify these objectives. You should try everything at once because good partial goals are necessary for the basic goal of human survival: for the longest time and with the greatest possible well-being. And for this it is good / better that the most convenient number of humans live and reproduce, at all times. Distributed in the best way and with the best relationships with their environment.
With these basic criteria, the problems to be solved are technical. And our greatest current strengths are scientific and technical capabilities. We have lacked knowing and explicitly keeping in mind the basic objective. And due to this lack, we have not had the broad and common vision to adopt and apply effective and efficient measures to general and local problems related to the environment.
Many of the partial ecological problems and objectives are contemplated both in the UN programs and in the encyclical Laudato si. It is hoped that the use of the universal ethical principle as a basic criterion will facilitate the adoption and implementation of effective measures for the care of the habitat. At least as far as possible given the situation and perspectives in which we find ourselves.
The 2030 Agenda addresses these issues in several goals: 2 on sustainable agriculture, 6 on sustainable water and sanitation management, 7 on energy, 9 on resilient infrastructure, 11 on human settlements, 12 sustainable consumption and production patterns. And in the very important goals 13 on climate change and its effects, 14 on the oceans and seas and 15 on all terrestrial ecosystems.
The encyclical Laudato si is entirely dedicated “to the care of the common home.” And the Fratelli tutti recalls it in paragraphs 5 and 17
8.-Genetical and environmental engineering
To survive, all species try to adapt to their environments, or adapt them where they can. Our species has developed growing capacities to adapt to diverse environments. And to change them. Now it is capable of modifying both other living organisms and itself.
These growing possibilities raise ethical doubts both for the objectives that can be sought with the different subjects: transgenic plants, animal cloning, curing, improving or surpassing humans …, and for the means to be used: stem cells, use of animal or human guinea pigs, cross contamination, group oligopolies …
It is clear that genetic and environmental engineering are increasingly important in the survival of the species and its well-being, both reactively to solve or alleviate problems: famines, diseases, pandemics, … and proactively: improvement of habitat (mineral and animal) and man himself to adapt it to foreseeable changes or new environments outside the Earth.
And it is also clear that, in all these questions, it is essential to consider the now explicit basic objective and the universal ethical principle. This assumption by the experts would give them light to resolve the many doubts now existing.
Also, in this matter there are discrepancies between politicians, scientists and churches and ideologies. And they are new issues that affect, and can affect much more, the present and future of humanity. As I say, I believe that the basic ideas serve as the basis for the criteria to be adopted: both reactively in the face of doubts that arise on specific questions, and to think about active policies that improve the adaptability of the species to changing environments: on Earth or outside. her.
In my opinion, based on the basic idea, there should be no doubt about the apparent risk of strong artificial intelligence, nor about transhumanism. Men will remain men as long as they are. And it does not seem that there should be a problem in which they can make beings that are not genetically human. If they are machines, it is not a problem and if they were another species of living beings, we have been “manufacturing” new species from existing ones for centuries. The new species would be within the same natural law as us. That, if God exists, it will continue to be a divine law. And the new species would be created within the ongoing evolutionary and vital process.
9.- Social engineering
In my booklet I use Popper’s definition: “… it includes social activities, both private and public that, to achieve an end or goal, consciously use all available technological knowledge.” And I take away the negatives that sometimes accompany this concept. Social engineering will be good or bad depending on the purposes for which it is used.
Since time immemorial, people and various entities have used some type of social engineering for their purposes, good or bad. At this time there are enormous intellectual and material capacities to influence people, both locally and by region and culture and at the level of the whole world.
As I have said, the basic ideas are implicit in all men. And the idea of humanity, of caring for our environment, of fear of self-destruction and worsening well-being is becoming more and more evident … And above all there is the feeling that a goal is missing, a common path in the words of the Pope (31).
With this demand situation and with the great existing technical capacities, I think it would be easy to spread the basic ideas and gradually implement the most efficient and possible applications to help solve the many pending problems. The list of problems to be solved is in the 2030 Agenda and in the papal encyclicals. And in these 17 applications. And most are common to all countries and cultures. And as we have said, they are problems of humanity as a subject.
In accordance with the foregoing, it seems that the leaders of all the aforementioned public and religious entities and organizations will have an interest in seeing, judging and assuming these ideas, where appropriate. Ideas that with the existing capabilities and means of social engineering would not be difficult to apply gradually.
As for the companies and private organizations that are more especially dedicated to social engineering, I believe that they will also be interested in the basic ideas, and in their applications, since sooner rather than later they will be explicit and operational. And it will have an advantage, material and moral, who first and best contributes to disseminate and apply them.
10.-Education
Nor is it necessary to emphasize the importance of the new ethics for the education of children and adults. And vice versa, since education: at home, in schools, churches, universities…, is an essential part of social engineering. And soit should be one of the main means of implementing the basic ideas.
As I say in my little book, you can think of creating a subject of universal, theoretical and practical Ethics for everyone, where it is taught, more or less: that each person has dignity for representing humanity, our obligations, the happiness that is achieved doing what each one can do, the orientation to choose technical training according to their abilities and the foreseeable demand, the virtues and civic values…, That is to say, educating so that each human being knows that he is unique and important as a person. And know what you can do to be happy within your circumstances and the space of vital freedom that you have in each moment of your life. And if he is a believer, better for him: he is doubly obligated but he hopes for eternal happiness.
And I also say that, when possible and known, the contents of the various subjects under study should be reviewed so that they are in accordance with the PEU. Highlighting that science and technology must be oriented to the survival and well-being of humanity as priority objectives. Using altruism / love as a means.
The UN dedicates goal 4 to education. And religions and groups, public and private, have always paid special attention to these issues.
11.-Social and economic policies
Naturally, the new ethic involves rethinking economic systems and policies, and social customs and practices. And try to adjust them to the PEU in what is most convenient and possible. Promoting what is good for the survival of humanity and the well-being of people: current and future.
I repeat the basic objectives because it is essential to take them into account and assume them in all applications. In general, good group objectives will coincide with the basic objective, but possible differences can be important in the medium term. At the risk of having to decide without being sure of the future. But that is a trade that good technicians know. Or they must know and exercise if they are honest.
As I said in a note I wrote in 1985, any economic system can be good: capitalism, communism, liberalism, protectionism, barter, … if it is the one that best accommodates itself, at that time, to the partial or global society in which it operates. I know something of these subjects through my trade. And I believe that it is not difficult to find and apply solutions to the problems that the world has raised in economic and social matters, having clear objectives and sufficient moral and legal power.
Both economic policies and social relations must be analyzed considering what can be done in the rest of the applications that affect them. And, as Popper says, it is often more effective to come up with gradual changes. But I think that having a clear medium and long-term objective, it is easier to tackle and solve the ecological and poverty problems that seem the most urgent. And at the same time raise the morale of the citizens of the world, showing them a clear course for the future and actions consistent with it.
As you have seen in Davos, the pandemic has paved the way to accelerate some of the actions of the 2030 Agenda. And seen with the new ethics, some of the objectives “dreamed” by the Pope could be raised in the short and medium term. But I think it is very important that, as soon as possible, all these plans and actions are reviewed in the light of the basic ideas, whose objectives should mark the way forward and the goals to try to achieve in the short and medium term.
For this it is very important that these ideas are sufficiently assumed and that, based on them, there is a global vision that includes the partial objectives of the main groups, both vertical: USA, China, their areas of influence, the countries in development and poorer .. as horizontal: religions, powers that be, economic and social leaders, communicators, …
And naturally, it would be good if the wise and thinkers of the various disciplines they affect, contrast these ideas and give their opinion on their scientific validity and their usefulness for the government of humanity and its groups.
12.-Marginalized groups. The poor.
In my little book I call two groups marginal: Those who are outside the civic norms: the amoral and misfits, the conflictive, … and those who are poor and do not have a minimum well-being. Both groups can refer to vertical and horizontal people and groups.
For both groups it is convenient to apply the new ethics that makes it explicit that the first thing that living beings, including humans, have is the duty to do what is best for the survival and well-being of humanity. Within the circumstances of each. And this is an enforceable obligation, with love, to each and every one of the people. Whatever their condition, sex, status, race, age, culture, rank, wealth, health, … And vertical and horizontal groups and collectives.
Following Kant, this duty inscribed in the nature of man is what gives him his dignity as a human being. And the right to have a decent life and integral development. That is, although it is rare to have to highlight it, it seems obvious that marginals of any kind and their group leaders, like other humans, have a duty to do everything they can that is good / better for humanity, that is for themselves and for others.
With this idea and with the means seen in the previous applications, I believe that, with the universal ethical principle as a base, and altruism / love as a means, it is not difficult to establish policies and actions to deal with amoral and conflictive marginals at the levels in that exist, both vertical: families, towns and cities, nations, world, …, and horizontal: political parties, religions, professions, …
As for the poor, I believe that there is a double policy that, express or implicit, is in the proposals of the Pope and the UN:
Laudato is focused on the conservation of the environment but dedicates paragraphs 48 to 52 to the poor. And it is interesting as an example of the cited discrepancies, to read paragraph 50 where it says that: “instead of solving the problems of the poor … some only manage to propose a reduction in the birth rate.” And then he says that: “… demographic growth is fully compatible with comprehensive and supportive development.” Perhaps these phrases are true but partially.
The Fratelli tutti is a call to brotherly love and develops widely the parable of the Samaritan to ask that the poor be helped: poor people, groups and nations. And it also proposes sharing available assets and reducing inequalities. The encyclical is a call to help the poor who exist at all times: individuals, groups, nations, … through the redistribution of wealth.
On the part of the UN, the first objective of the 2030 Agenda reads: “End poverty in all its forms and in the whole world”. And the rest of the objectives are means to try to achieve the first, both for current men and for those of the future caring for the habitat. Among these proposals is, shamefully implicit in point 3 as “reproductive health”, the reduction of the birth rate.
As I have said, I believe that the differences in this matter between the UN and the three biblical religions is a very serious problem whose resolution could be achieved with the assumption by all of the universal ethical principle. The basic idea, if it is true as I believe, is a biological law testable by science, and at the same time it is at the base of the natural law confirmed by the revelation in Genesis 1.28 and in 9.1 to Noah and his family.
It is clear that the Pope is right when he says that we must help the poor, but it seems clear that at the same time responsible parenthood must be applied, which the Church also preaches, to avoid that “giving birth like rabbits” millions of women are “factories” of millions of poor people. With the problems and sufferings that this entails: for them, for their children and for everyone.
In the parable of the Samaritan, as important or more than helping the wounded would have been to prevent them from hurting. For both things, to help and to avoid, it is important that there is an effective and efficient UN, which advises the policies to be followed to try to avoid having more poor people and to create wealth that allows helping those who do exist.
Even with the risk posed by any concentration of power, it seems desirable that there is an Authority and world leaders who have a global vision of the problems of the poor and marginalized. And that it has the moral, legal and economic means to solve them as it seems best.
In any case, with the assumption of the universal ethical principle as the basis, and given the seriousness of the problems of marginal groups of both types, their resolution could be accelerated by the organizations closest to each problem: cities, states, UN, etc. religions, ideologies, leaders, communicators, …
13.-Religions and other ethic creators
I remember here a phrase from Einstein: “The world as we have created it is a process of our thought. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking”.
Religions and other creators of ethics have been and are very important for the changes in the world, both in thinking about them and in implementing and maintaining them. And as we have seen, both philosophers and religions and the UN preach goals and objectives in accordance with the universal ethical principle. If they had been very different, we would have become extinct. And it could not be otherwise, since the PEU is a biological law implicit in all men. A law that is part … “of the secret plan of Nature” named by Kant in the Eighth Principle of his “Idea of a universal history in a cosmopolitan sense”. Secret plan that is God’s plan, if God exists.
The problem has been that the aims and objectives sought were and are partial. Good but partial. Partial in the ends: peace, eradication of poverty, equality, … instead of the primary and elementary end of survival. And partial in the subjects: nations, religions, ideologies … instead of humanity.
And in addition to the aforementioned “good” creators and disseminators of good ethics with good ends, even if they are partial, there are the people and groups that, due to ignorance or malice, create bad or inappropriate ethics, customs, fashions, … seeking primarily their own benefit. or their groups.
In accordance with the above, it seems urgent that the “good” creators and disseminators of ethics see the basic ideas, assume them if they are true, and act accordingly. They will be useful to you to continue trying to achieve your current good objectives, which will be the same but more comprehensive and universal.
With the assumption and diffusion of the universal ethical principle, it should be more difficult for the creators and users of bad ethics that cause suffering and damage to men and their habitat to succeed. And they put humanity at risk.
As we have seen, both the Biblical Churches and the UN do not have to change their beliefs or basic aims. In fact, the PEU confirms them, which says a lot in its favor. The changes to be made would be technical and within the contingent of all doctrines. For philosophers, the basic idea and broad altruism provide a basis for the foundation of classical partial ethics. Also, for biologists and neurologists.
14.-Nacionalisms and other group ideologies.
In this application, I say in my little book that: “By definition, the basic idea is against everything that confronts men. Of everything that breaks the universal brotherhood. Of what creates conflicts and hatred ”. And then I continue: “Basic ideas are not against differences. Personally, I think it’s good that there are many different cultures and human types ”And I cite several reasons.
When I wrote the above, five years ago, there was an idea in the air that seemed to equate globalization with uniformity. I think that at this time, with the rise of nationalisms, it has been seen that it is very difficult to change the group instincts acquired throughout the history of the species. It seems that it is better if there are societies, more or less pluralistic, but internally cohesive, where their components are well integrated. The condition that the PEU demands of these groups, nations or states, is that they assume that they are part of humanity. And that they can and should try to live better as a group, but that they should use their uniqueness and capabilities both for their own benefit and for other human groups. By the account that they have if they want to live together and prosper in “real” peace and have reciprocity.
And the same with ideologies. The basic ideas and the PEU are compatible with all beliefs (religions, agnosticisms, atheisms, humanisms, …), and with all political and economic ideas and forms of government (liberalism, communism, capitalism, democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, republic….). But always with the essential condition that those who are part of these groups, know and assume that above all they are human persons who are part of humanity. And that they must act with the PEU as the foundation of their policies and actions.
Smart people and groups will realize that acting according to the PEU is the best for humanity and for each of them. And in any case, it is convenient to apply what is said in the previous and subsequent points.
15.-Crimes and misdemeanors against humanity.
All group ethics – civil, military and religious – include in their norms a list of crimes, faults and sins. Many of which are common to most of them. The new ethics must also have its list of crimes and misdemeanors. And, normally, having been the implicit basis of the ethics in force, many of those common to group crimes will be universal crimes. P.E.: killing or hurting others for no reason, lying to harm, stealing the goods of others, …
Making explicit and assuming the universal ethical principle must suppose, as we have seen, revising civil laws and the contingent precepts of religions. And also the rules of the different groups that affect the survival and well-being of humanity and the means to try to achieve these objectives.
It seems that the list of faults and crimes should classify and punish the most significant behaviors that go against the PEU, whether or not they are already classified as faults or sins in any of the group ethics. I give as an example the burning of a forest or the contamination of a river, which are crimes already explicitly defined in some ethics, but which could be included in the catalog of crimes against humanity, or universal offenses, aggravating their sanction if deemed appropriate. .
There are currently several crimes classified as against humanity. They are crimes against people, executed by states or groups. All of them are serious and punishable but, in principle, they are not the ones that most affect the survival of the species. I believe that from the 2030 Agenda, the two cited Encyclicals and other ethics, it is possible to identify the universal crimes and misdemeanors that require more urgent attention.
And except in serious cases and recidivism, the penalties for people would be more moral than material. It could be enough with the publicity of the offense and the consequent social sanction caused by the previous collective awareness. This is easy to do with current social engineering media and techniques.
It seems that China is successfully implementing its social credit system started just a few years ago. With good citizen acceptance. China does not have an ethical base to rely on and that gives it a certain advantage because it can “create” sins and virtues. But it is a dangerous method. China, and humanity, could use the inauguration of the PEU. The doubt would be in the means of control but the method seems valid.
In any case, as I say in my booklet, the list of crimes and misdemeanors and their penalties should be made by the local authorities of each group. With the advice, direction and control of the World Ethics Council.
16.-Universal virtues and values.
Similarly, and in the opposite direction, there should be a list of particularly significant virtues and values based on the PEU. And all of them will be included in broad altruism, according to my understanding of this concept, since any act or behavior that is good for the survival of the species is altruistic.
In any case, it seems that there will be acts better than others, either because of the breadth of the subjects who perform them, because of their universality, or because of the usefulness of their results. In the following application I deal with individual ethics, which are the broadest. As for universality, several lists of group ethics that I have consulted highlight love, solidarity, benevolence, honesty, cooperation, industriousness, … It is important to add austerity as an individual and group virtue. For what it has to save resources, avoid scandal and promote peace and coexistence.
Using methods similar to those discussed in the previous point, it seems easy to establish a common list of universal virtues and values and a reward system that rewards, morally or materially, those who practice them.
Scholia: Following Aristotle, and other people and entities, one could reward not only those who practice some good acts, but also and more especially those who are good for a lifetime. As is already done with some civil and religious saints, some Nobel, some Righteous Among the Nations, … They would be “Good Universals”: individual or collective.
And it is valid for this note what I wrote on page 110 of Surviving loving, at the end of this application 16:
“Common note for many of the ideas presented in the previous points: It is possible that some reader may think that these ideas restrict the freedom of man and that they would try to direct and manipulate their consciences. That’s how it is. Since if validly established universal virtues are not promoted, or universally evil acts are not said to be bad, sins will be promoted and virtues will be hidden according to the partial interests of individuals or groups. Like now. In any case, all these are examples and occurrences to give an idea of what the assumption and application of a universal ethical basis could mean ”.
En cualquier caso todo esto son ejemplos y ocurrencias para dar idea de lo que la asunción y aplicación de una base ética universal podría suponer”.
17.-The individual ethics
I use the term ethics in the meaning of DRAE 4: “Set of moral norms that govern the conduct of the person in any area of life.” As we know, the ethics of people is formed with what is inherited at birth and what is acquired. To act, people also rely on the explicit norms of the groups to which they belong.
This application is very important and very broad, but I wanted to highlight two aspects:
a). – All of us have inherited the vital imperative – the mandate to try for our species to survive – which is implicit in the basis of our genetic program.
b). – This imperative has been operating throughout the history of men and therefore bases the set of our inherited and current moral standards, both good and less good. (Being good those that are good for the PEU).
I have highlighted the above to remember that the basic idea and the PEU have been and are operating directly in all people. And indirectly, through the good ethics of the species and group, both inherited and acquired. And this presence of the PEU is increasingly appreciated in the growing awareness of humans of belonging to the same species / humanity. In which what one does, good or bad, affects others.
The unity / duality egoism / altruism has developed a universal ethic that is the cause of the many movements in favor of caring for the environment and other humans. The UN and its resolutions, and the Papal Encyclicals, are examples of the existence of this implicit universal ethic. I believe that sooner rather than later it will be made explicit and that it will be very easy for men to understand and assume it.
And men will be happier the closer to the PEU the explicit laws and precepts of the groups to which they belong are brought closer to the PEU. Creating and spreading these good ethics and universal and group laws will be the work that thinkers and civil and religious leaders must do. And so the thinkers and leaders will also be good and happy: in this life and in the Other if it exists.
I finish like my little book: “When the new ethics is seen, assumed and practiced, it will also feed back to the implicit ethics. And the surviving Humanity will continue, itinerant, on the path towards the Best that men, believers and non-believers, have been searching for a long time ”. It is trying to fulfill the dream of Morin, Pope Francis, Teilhard, and many other dreamers, known and anonymous.
J.C. Madrid, mid-March 2021
Addendum
This note may seem long but it is a summary, very brief, of the many issues it contains. You can expand it on my website. In any case I think it can be valid for my purpose.
The note is addressed to the people and entities that may have the greatest interest in the future of humanity and its groups. And in his government. Especially thoughtful and civil and religious leaders. I will try to reach as many as possible around the world and I hope that some of them will see these ideas, and act accordingly. In your case, please keep me informed. And you can ask me as many questions as you have.
J.C.