1. Approach

See the Urgent Letter to Human Beings

A.- The basic idea or first commandment.

“Like all other species of living beings, our species, Homo sapiens, has its own survival as its primary vital purpose”. And because we are part of it, all humans have had, and continue to have, this same purpose of ensuring the survival of our species. This is the first commandment.

It is an obvious and intuitive idea that we normally take for granted and use, both the wise and the less literate, without noticing it. It can be stated and justified in different ways (see). If it is true, as I believe it is, its theoretical consequences and practical applications make it one of the most important ideas in our history. But it is not easy to look at or to see because it is surrounded by a complex environment, and its assumption clashes with deep-rooted issues and theories as I have been able to see over the years (See Bibliography).

I believe that my methods of analysis and exposition are rigorous but that, possibly, on some issues they do not follow the usual standards and style of the specialties concerned. I ask the wise who read me to apply the generous recommendation of Professor Juan Arana: “…one must (…) learn to rescue any respectable thesis that the stammering expressions of the uninitiated may hide” [1]  (see)

After these warnings, I will try to explain the main concepts of the basic idea: the subject, the purpose and the commandment. And to outline the main doubts that some wise specialists have raised with me (see Objections).

1.- The subject

The subject is each of the species existing at any given moment and the individual living beings that compose them. That is to say, in our case, it is the species Homo sapiens as it really exists at any given moment that has the purpose of surviving. And therefore, each and every one of the living human beings that compose it has the same purpose for our species to survive. And therefore, the duty to try to do so.

This proposition, so simple, seems not to be easy to see and understand, as it has given rise to many doubts.  I will list the most frequent observations:

The concept of species: There are more than twenty definitions of the term and many doubts among specialist philosophers about its content. For my idea any kind of species will do, but it is easier to see it if we use the concept of biological species, defined by Mayr as: “a set of natural populations capable of interbreeding with one another and reproductively (genetically) isolated from other similar groups by physiological and behavioral barriers” [2] (See).

Another possible way of looking at the concept is by analogy with a football team. Teams (species) are those whose aim is to win the match or the championship. And that is also the purpose, and the duty, of the players (individual organisms) who are the team at any given moment.

As another objection, one of the wise men told me that the species was a mental “construct”, “a taxonomic category without real existence”.  I replied that species have been and are “constructs”, but concrete and real constructs that exist at every moment and that already exist.

Another told me that “the species Man does not exist as a “something” capable of functioning as an ordered system. A “something” that comprises all men and can have the goal of survival and the imperative to try”. I replied that our species, like all biological species, functions as a complex system: with a basic goal and a programming in all its individuals with rules about their behaviours, both permanent and contingent, depending on their circumstances and those of their environments. With variants if there are different genetic and cultural populations.  And with different degrees of group and individual freedom according to their physical and cultural “natures”. And this is how the more than two million species known to exist today have functioned successfully up to now (see).

I also had to clarify that the goal of survival, and the mandate to try to achieve it, exist even if the species fails and becomes extinct. And the mandate also exists if, in order for its organisms to survive, the species becomes another or others: another or others that will also have the mandate to survive.

The discussion on the concept of species is very fashionable among philosophers of science and I have had quite a few questions raised. I think I have answered all of them satisfactorily, although it is very difficult to change current ideas, especially if the changes come from an amateur. I was helped by reading Ernst Mayr, already mentioned, and Dobzhansky [3] and Gould [4], who consider species as evolutionary subjects (see in Biologists).

In any case, it is clear that it is the individual organisms (the players), who have the purpose and the task of their species’ survival. Even if they do not know it. In principle, that is the meaning of their life. And that is what they come into the world for, even if they later do nothing positive, or are even detrimental to the basic goal. Barring programming errors or otherwise, each individual organism has an implicit purpose for its species to survive and the basic information to try to do so.

This idea is also elementary and obvious to anyone who observes the behaviour of the living beings around us, including humans. And it is neither said nor used by the wise. I don’t think they have noticed it or its importance. I was very excited to see it written by two important biologists: Jacques Monod, Nobel laureate [5] and Natalia López-Moratalla, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology [6]. A young biologist, Evelyn Segura, also saw the idea and the desirability of studying it [7].

For my part, I believe that philosophers have not seen, or have not given importance to this idea, for several reasons. The most important is that, since the Greeks, philosophers have been and are concerned with the spirit. The body does not concern them. They count on it. Kant says literally that our species is immortal [8] (See). The idea that we can self-destruct is very recent. And philosophers left the problem to scientists for the above mentioned causes and some others (see causes of not seeing).

Philosophers do not consider species as subjects and therefore believe that no finality can be attributed to them. They are guilty of anthropocentrism since some living beings created the sexed biological species, some hundreds of millions of years ago, with the clear purpose of improving the way to evolve and better adapt to their changing environments.  The problem of teleology and functions occupies nature philosophers a lot, but mainly as abstract concepts.

2. Purpose

As we have said, the purpose or objective of living beings is the survival of their species. Possibly as a means for Life as a process to remain in time. Although we do not know what it is, nor if it exists, a “final” purpose for Life in general. Nor do we know if our particular species has any other purpose.

These questions are very broad. In addition to what has already been said, I try to state what most affects our idea and the most significant doubts that have been raised with me:

A kind biologist, professor emeritus at the University of Washington, told me that the goal of living beings is not survival but reproduction [9]. I replied that reproduction is the aim of individual organisms to attempt the “higher” end or goal of the survival of their species (see). All species try to make their organisms reproduce, but iteratively, while trying to ensure that their offspring survive and have the highest reproductive capacity of “better” organisms: from salmon that die with their thousands of eggs left to die, to penguins with their only offspring cared for months.

We see that the goal of survival of sexed biological species, such as ours, can be translated for their individual organisms into two basic goals which, obviously, are inscribed in the individual programming of each organism in the language of each species:

a). To live: long enough to fulfil its part in the reproductive system of its species.

b). To reproduce: directly, or to help those who do, so that their next generation can do the same. And improving their capabilities as much as possible.

Individuals and groups of each species have been developing and assuming in their genetic, epigenetic and cultural information, different capacities and norms to try to fulfil these objectives. Also humans, who, in addition to these three dimensions, possibly have a fourth, exclusively human one: the symbolic, more spiritual inheritance, according to biologists Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb [10].

I am writing this letter because human beings have not yet taken on board, expressly and publicly, the basic goal of survival of the species. And they have acted with the individual aims or objectives of living and reproducing.  With the behaviours and group norms that, at each moment, they have believed best to achieve them. And now, too. Humans are a social species with many and growing capacities. And the people who have made it up have tried to form groups that are as cohesive, strong and large as possible. This human social capacity has made possible the enormous reproductive success of our species/family.

The problem is that there have been several blood sausage effects. I call the morcilla effect what tends to happen when working in groups and with partial objectives. Groups that succeed are often to the detriment of other groups. And if both groups work with partial objectives, success in one or more partial objectives is usually to the detriment of other objectives. It’s like a blood sausage: when you squeeze one or more sides, lumps appear on one or more others. And if you squeeze too hard, the blood sausage breaks.

In our case, the basic objective of survival of the species has been achieved, without seeing it, going from small groups, families, clans, tribes…, to the large political and population unions of today: China, India, USA, Russia, …, which coexist with almost two hundred other countries of different sizes and circumstances. And acting as a group, human beings have achieved the enormous success of reaching almost 8 billion people today and dominating the Earth. Albeit with some serious morcilla effects

In trying to achieve the goals of living and reproducing, individual and group relationships with other beings, of the same or different species, can be helpful and collaborative or competitive. Collaboration can range from maternal-filial love to paid or slave labour. And from the union of states (the e pluribus unum of the USA) to international commercial treaties. Individual competition can range from job competitions to robbery with violence and death. And group competition, from commercial dumping to war to occupy each other’s territory.

For this coexistence and competition, we humans have developed, as partial ends, a wide variety of individual and social capacities, virtues and values. Among them are: physical aptitudes, various intelligences, courage, industriousness, cooperation, honesty, solidarity, … And among the social ones: justice, peace, fraternity, collaboration, group cohesion, patriotism… Each reader can add different virtues, values and capacities exercised in different times, places and cultures.

Philosophers have not yet been able to discover what the Good is, what is the priority objective or Good for human beings to try to achieve. The three main doctrines are still in force, which, in order of antiquity, say that the Good to try to achieve is:

a).  Individual happiness, which Aristotle equates with that of the Platonic city. And which is attained by the practice of the virtues, or rather by being virtuous all one’s life long.[11] b).

b). Kant’s eudemonism or moral perfectionism, which is to be achieved by good will. The imperative is to do what can become universal law [12].

c). The greatest welfare of the greatest number of people of the utilitarians.

These Ends or Goods are good, but partial and inconcrete:

. It is not known what Aristotelian happiness consists of, nor what and how its virtues are.

. It is not known what eudemonism consists of, nor the Kantian categorical imperative.

. Nor do we know what utilitarian welfare consists of or how it should be distributed.

But, in spite of the above biases and indefinitions, it seems that with these philosophical doctrines, plus the varied wisdoms and beliefs of other cultures, our species humanity has so far succeeded in its goal of survival. But with many problems due to the morcilla effects: there are still huge inequalities, much hardship for hundreds of millions of people, and a growing sense of unease due to a lack of direction. And above all there is the risk of self-destruction: in the short term through the use of large weapons, and in the medium term through environmental degradation.

It is a frequent mistake to consider good and necessary goals or partial objectives as priorities or ends. The good partial objectives, whether common to the whole species or group or individual, are those that contribute to the higher-ranking or priority objective. This is generally not programmed by individuals. And it is certainly unknown to human beings. Although they unknowingly try to do so by acting according to their basic good instincts and their partial good rules. They are like Monsieur Jourdain, Molière’s bourgeois, who spoke prose without knowing it.

In short, the goal of survival of their species is a vital commandment for all living things. Including viruses, which are not considered to be fully living beings.

The knowledge and assumption of the basic goal may not solve all current problems, both theoretical and practical, but it would help a lot if it were seen and assumed by some influential people: wise men and leaders, secular and religious. And I believe it is indispensable if, if it survives, our humanity is to change its way of life.

3.- The commandment

It seems that if all species have a common and universal behaviour that makes them try to survive, there must be a mandate for this in the programming of the living beings that compose them.  This idea is developed on pages 18 to 23 of “Surviving by loving”.  I summarise the most significant points and add some of the questions raised and my answers.

First of all, I would like to point out that the idea of the commandment does not appeal to anyone: neither to believers nor to non-believers. Believers, from the outset and without thinking about it, do not like the idea of a “natural” commandment shared with other living beings, which tells us what the purpose of our life is. And non-believers, both materialists and spiritualists, do not like an external commander, be it God or Nature, telling us what is good. And who, moreover, tells us that it is our duty to try to achieve it.

Because of this initial bad reception, I spent twelve years not daring to speak my ideas: in case they were heterodox for the Church or for philosophers and scientists. After much reading and some talking and listening, I saw that my proposals are not only orthodox, but that they support what the Church and the other religions of the Book say. And that the sages have taken and take for granted the basic objective and the vital mandate. And that they have counted on these laws, and used them, but without making them explicit.  I extend these ideas:

The Church asserts that there is a natural law, impressed on all people, which tells each one what is good and evil and enlightens him as to what he has to do. And it says that the Church does not have a monopoly on the interpretation of this natural law [13]. On the other hand, and for all biblically based religions, the command for animals and men is clear in Genesis 1.22. and 1.27-28. God says on the 5th and 6th days: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth”.  And He also commissions men to take care of the created things (see under Religions).

As for the philosophers, especially since Kant and the Enlightenment, they think that Man, with his reason, can and must come to know what he has to do. Kant’s phrase is well known: “the starry sky above me and the moral law within me”.  And Hume confirms that Man has a “moral sentiment” which tells him what he has to do. [14] (See Hume)

My idea agrees with everyone: with the Church, with the Bible, with Kant, with Hume and with all rationalist philosophers: the basic idea is part of the natural law, confirms Genesis and can be reached with human reason (I have done so). And it is the concretization of Kant’s categorical imperative and Hume’s moral sense.

Scientists do not usually consider first causes. At most they think about proximate ones and get by as best they can when they have to “philosophize” for their work. They do not enter into disputes about final causes or about the possible “principal”.  As far as philosophical methods in science are concerned, Mayr agrees with Feyerabend when he says that “anything goes”. It is the “companion philosophers” who try to contextualize scientific discoveries as they occur. The greatest example I can recall is that of Michael Ruse with E.O. Wilson and their work (both of them) on sociobiology [15] and [16]. I think Ruse is the philosopher who came closest to seeing the basic idea. See also in Surviving pp. 195-216.

I try to further clarify this concept of the priority life commandment by quoting some ideas set out on pages 18 to 23 of Surviving in Love, and which also respond to some doubts and objections that have been raised with me over the years:

. It is not an instinct. Instincts are instruments.

. Nor is it the vital force or élan of Bergson and the vitalists.

. It is an order, a basic part of the primordial natural law.

. It is not an end in itself. The goal is to survive. The command is to try. The command is fulfilled by living, even if the end is not achieved.

. There is no naturalistic fallacy. To be is to live, the duty is to try to fulfil the mandate.

. It is a priority and inexcusable duty. It precedes the others in time and order.

. It is permanent in time. It does not die out, even if it is not seen or is hidden by partial objectives and the predominance of the individual over the species. See Damásio.[17]

. It is implicit in the basic information of living beings.

. It is assimilable to a charge that every living being has for existing as a living being.

. It is also comparable to the baton that is received and handed over in relay races.

And in any case, if someone does not like the existence of a mandate, he can abolish it. But somehow there is a law that says that the purpose of living beings and their species is that the vital process continues, that is, that Life survives: “in spite of time and difficulties” (DRAE). And beings are for what they are for.

A human being is a human being just by living. But he lives as a “moral” human person if, in his living, he takes his conscience into account. In his individual conscience are the four inherited dimensions (genetic, epigenetic, cultural and possibly symbolic) plus the ethical norms of his environment (lived and actual). The problem is that the vital mandate is in the genetic information but is usually “covered” by the individual’s goals of living and surviving and the norms for trying to achieve them.  As we know, the life mandate is also not explicitly manifested in their environment or in the moral norms of any group in their environment.  This idea raises a side issue that I think is very important.

4.-A leap in human evolution.

As we have said, human beings have survived until now by obeying the survival mandate of the species without seeing it or knowing it, or at least without making it explicit as a priority objective. That is, they have managed to survive with individual and group goals and norms. Just like the rest of living beings. And with strategies similar to those of many social biological species. Counting, humans, with their enormous and growing capacities for intelligence, communication, social relations, … And with explicit laws and rules of behavior for individuals and their groups.

Until a few years ago, the whole species or humanity was not thought of as the subject of anything. In the last century, and especially since the Second World War, world leaders realized the need for global policies. And so the UN was created, the Charter of Human Rights… And a growing awareness of globalization developed, with still partial objectives of global scope: peace, trade and communication relations, the objectives included in the current 2030 agenda, the World Health Organization, … But without stating the vital and priority objective of the survival of the species or the imperative mandate to try to achieve it.

Because of this failure to see and assume the purpose of the species/humanity, nor the vital mandate to try to fulfil it, there is no universal ethical principle. Nor global moral and legal norms that have the survival of the species as an express and priority objective.

The knowledge and use of the basic idea on a global level would serve to develop a new species consciousness, which would raise our humanity to a higher level in the evolutionary process we are in as living beings. And thereby making us more different as a species from the rest of the existing species. Following the process initiated when individual consciousness made us different from other individual living beings. Our species would be the only one capable of seeing and acting as a subject conscious of itself and of its duty to survive.

Naturally, for this leap it seems appropriate to have an Organization, or an express system, that has and exercises the representation of humanity to assume the basic objective and to manage, permanently, the way to achieve it.  And to try to better answer, as a species Man/subject, to Kant’s three questions: “what can I know, what must I do, and what am I allowed to hope for? “[18]. And also to answer many other questions posed, for which time is needed for the survival and growth of capacities and knowledge.

This “up-leveling” of humanity in the evolutionary process is a necessary step in the development of the noosphere of Vernadsky and Teilhard.  We are now, vitally, a “special” species in a biosphere that we share with all other living beings. The assumption of humanity as a conscious subject of the duty to survive will mean that we will stand alone at this new level, as a species or “family” clearly distinct from other species.

And the “new” humanity will have to assume, as a subject, the task of using and developing this new consciousness in its two meanings: as a perception of itself and its environment (consciousness) and as an element for morally judging actions and omissions that affect the priority vital objective (conscience). It would be to advance in Teilhard’s noosphere. [19]

In any case, the assumption and use of the basic idea will be essential to continue attempting the survival of the species: in its present form or with the changes that are necessary and possible at any given moment. It is to be expected that as long as humans, or their possible descendants, survive, they will learn more and more things that answer the Kantian questions. And as has been done so far, they will have to try to survive: until further notice.

1. Broad altruism. Second commandment.

(pp. 40-54 of Surviving by Loving)

The term altruism is polysemous, but with some variations it is usually used as defined in the dictionary of the Royal Academy: “diligence in procuring the good of others even at the cost of one’s own”. For my part, and for lack of a better term, I use the broad concept of altruism to include everything that is done or omitted that is good for another or others. And which is usually also good for the basic objective. And this altruism is always self-interested because it is always rewarded.

I expand on the above.

a). A preliminary summary:

Content of broad altruism: work, study, trade, teach, ….. Whatever the motivation (paid, reciprocal, free, gratuitous, onerous, pure). It includes all the social virtues: cooperation, solidarity, honesty, justice, … And those that make us better for ourselves and for others: healthier, wiser, saints, solvent, cheerful…: and those of austerity, prudence, fortitude, charity, wisdom, industriousness, …

Function. Another important idea is that altruism is only understood, vitally, as a means for the survival of the species. Altruism is the most efficient and effective strategy adopted by social species to attempt the survival of their individuals and the species. In other words, some form of altruism is good and indispensable for the survival of the social species.

Utility. According to the above, altruism is a self-interested element that social individuals use as a means to survive, to reproduce iteratively, and to improve their well-being and that of their group.

I develop these ideas and it is important to bear in mind that, with them, the terms altruism and selfishness change the meaning usually assigned to them.

b). Different concepts of altruism

In general, so far, actions or omissions that benefit another or others, gratuitously or even at the expense of the good of the altruist, are considered altruistic. Some meanings:

RAE: 1. Diligence in procuring the good of others, even at the cost of one’s own // 2. Phenomenon by which some genes or individuals of the same species benefit others at their own expense.

The María Moliner is more expressive. It says, referring to human altruism:

Altruism: inclination to concern oneself with the good of others and to devote sacrifices or efforts to it: abnegation, charity, disinterest, detachment, philanthropy, generosity, forgetfulness of self, quixotism, renunciation.

In the Espasa’s synonyms: Abnegation, acceptance, beneficence, benevolence, charity, civility, disinterest, detachment, philanthropy, generosity, graciousness, hidalguia, holocaust, hospitality, humanity, liberality, alms, piety, quixotada, quixotism, sacrifice.  And as antonyms: selfishness and sordidness. It also seems to refer to human altruism.

Different people have said and practised different meanings of altruism:

. Darwin’s sympathy [20] .

. John Hands’ collaboration and cooperation [21] .

. Kropotkin’s mutual aid [22] .

. Hans Jonas’ sense of responsibility [23] .

. Edgar Morin’s universal love [24] .

. Donald W. Pfaff’s altruistic brain [25] .

. Stefan Klein’s generous revolution [26] .

. St. Augustine’s Love and Do What You Will .

. The universal love of the Bhagavad Gita .

. Care for creation from Genesis .

. The command to love one another of Jesus of Nazareth .

. The lives of the saints, believers and unbelievers .

. The enormous unselfishness of the normal lives of all normal people .

. The altruism of groups, with groups of the same species .

. The altruism of individuals and groups, with individuals and groups of different species .

. …

c). Types of altruism.

In summary, three main types of altruism can be distinguished:

.  The instinctive altruism of hymenopterans. Studied by E. O. Wilson [16].

.  Reciprocal, immediate or deferred altruism. From Robert Trives [27] .

.  Human altruism: Acceptances quoted from the DRAE, María Moliner, from the Espasa .

.  And a possible altruism of all living beings, even unicellular, as an element present in their modes of reproduction. This is quoted by John Hands [21] and myself on pp. 44 of Surviving by loving and 73 of Surviving (See Books).

. Altruism is also love and care for oneself. In order to be healthier, wiser and holier. I add two more S’s to the three of my countryman Gracián: more solvent (richer) and more smiling (happier). To be able to give more to others; and to love them as oneself: a lot if we love ourselves a lot and a little if the opposite is true.

d). Motivation: My concept includes all motivations:

The first is the natural inclination or command. That is to say, the genetic, epigenetic and cultural order or recommendation that each individual of each species and group has implicit, at each moment and circumstance, in their vital programming. In man, the moral sense or part of the natural law that illuminates his moral conscience.

Other motivations: those that come from the judgement or reason of each individual in each case: material or immaterial, immediate or future retribution, increase of social appreciation, self-satisfaction, …

And the external motivations derived from compliance with the laws, norms, uses, commandments, … of the groups and collectives to which each subject belongs.

e). Altruism vs. selfishness.

Altruism is always self-interested and remunerated. Therefore, the wise and the saints are the most altruistic. And the most self-interested. Because by being altruistic they are happy in this life and in the next if it exists. I expand on the above:

Leaving aside the possible instinctive altruism of unicellular or other individually living beings, the altruism we now consider is exercised socially. And its forms, both implicit and explicit, are established by each species and its groups.

Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of “individual altruism”. All altruism is group altruism, that is to say, it is exercised within the different groups to which each individual belongs: family, living group, hunting group, defence group, work group, play group, …

Hence Wilson’s error and his selfish/altruistic gene. The altruistic subject is an individual organism or a group. Not genes. And the implicit and explicit norms of what are altruistic acts are of the individual or group organisms. They are the ones who exercise them. Genes are the beneficiary subjects of the altruism of organisms.

Strictly speaking, altruism is the intelligent way of being selfish. In other words:

f). The vital imperative and altruism.

As I said, I believe that altruism, any form of altruism, can only be understood if it fits within the vital imperative, implicit in all living beings, to try to survive of their species.

For this attempt at survival, each species has developed its own strategies. And in social species, both for the survival of the species and for the survival of its individuals, some kind of altruism is essential: instinctive, reciprocal, onerous, …

The altruistic strategies of each species and its groups are implicit in each of its individuals.  Along with other strategies that include competition and struggle.  In each species, group and individual, there is the universal and priority vital imperative of the survival of the species and the strategies to try to achieve it, which, simplifying, are of two types: collaboration/altruism and competition/fighting.  Each species, group and individual acts at each moment according to its genetic, epigenetic and cultural programming and according to its characteristics, circumstances and degree of freedom.

The more altruistic groups and species have a greater chance of survival. And to dominate the less altruistic intra-groups. Example: ants, bees, humans… And also, as is logical, in altruistic groups individuals are happier and can better fulfil their vital imperative.

And each species and group must incorporate and update their rules of behaviour according to their own circumstances and those of their environment at any given time (past, present and foreseeable). Trying to ensure that they are the best for their well-being and survival. Adapting to the environment or modifying it as far as possible.

g). Applications and apparent contradictions

One of the most frequent confusions arises from considering one of the partial objectives as the vital and priority objective of human beings: their individual survival, or their well-being, or their happiness, or peace, or justice, or freedom, … Or other partial goods for individuals or their groups.

From the basic idea we know that the vital goal implicit in all individuals is the survival of the species. And every act will tend to be internally valued and judged as good and altruistic if it benefits another or other individuals of the same group and species, including the altruistic subject himself as a member of the group and the species. And this without the subjects explicitly “knowing” what their life goal is.

These norms include striving for one’s own survival and that of the group, since both entities are supposed to be “good and better than others” for the vital goal. Therefore, both individuals and the group are basically selfish. That is, they will try to do what they think is good/better for them. Even at the expense of others. And that selfish behavior towards others is totally altruistic towards the group itself. And presumably to the species they represent.

Each subject has two “personalities”: one as a member of the species to which he belongs and another as a differentiated individual. Human beings have as a priority good the vital objective; and the norms to try to achieve it are those that they have inherited and those that they have acquired from their group.  And these norms, in individuals, have a double aspect: they drive him to survive individually and to collaborate so that his species reproduces itself iteratively.  And for these two aspects, he can and must do what he thinks is best at any given moment: compete/fight with whomever and cooperate/love with and to whomever.

In this double mandate it must overcome altruism over selfishness. In the case of social species, and above all in humans, we know (the species knows) that the best strategy for survival is cooperation/altruism/love, in groups. But that difficult strategy cooperation/altruism/group love works differently with individuals or groups that the subject considers not to be of the same group.

And then there is the enormous freedom of each man and of the species itself. And errors of judgement due to ignorance or simple inability to judge and foresee the future.  With all this I believe that individual and group behaviour can be explained. Which, in many cases, seem strange, irrational or senseless.

h). Other aspects to consider

The two basic ideas of survival and altruism are based on the observation of the behaviour of social species. In the part that can be compared to Man. That is, in the material or biological part.

We know that in man altruism has much richer and wider forms, content and extension than in any other living being.  I believe that this greater capacity to be altruistic, which includes what we call pure love, is possibly the greatest difference between the “natures” of humans and other living beings.

There would be a possible scale between: the elementary altruism of bacterial cell division, the instinctive altruism of hymenopterans, the reciprocal altruism of “higher” social animals, and the altruism/love of man.  Possibly on that scale there is a moment when pure love appears. Love that seeks no retribution, neither material nor spiritual. But, at least for me, that is an ineffable love.  In my idea I have to stay at the level of altruism/human love. Which, even at this level, is far superior and possibly of a different basic nature than that of all other living beings. But it has the same functional nature of being useful for living together.  And for the well-being and survival of individuals/people and their groups. And with that, of the species/humanity.

This human altruism/love becomes a means to an end when the group is the whole of humanity.  It is our implicit mandate, not yet scientifically acknowledged or explicitly recognized or assumed by wise men and politicians. It is Jesus’ commandment to love our neighbor. It has not been sufficiently and operationally emphasized that our neighbors are all people, present and future. Not only the near ones.  Jesus also said it: they are all neighbors, friends and enemies, Jews and Greeks.

And possibly, as I say elsewhere, the development, globalization, and increase of human love, besides contributing to the well-being and survival of the species, is the way forward, if Man endures, towards the full Love of Teilhard de Chardin at the Omega point. But that is another matter.  

C.- Things to do

(For a note on the web on Tasks and Things to do click here)

We now know that the purpose of our species/humanity is to survive. And that the meaning of our life as living human beings is to cooperate for that purpose. We also know that the best way to do this is to be altruistic, collaborating with other human beings. It is now a matter of thinking about the possible things to do.

When I say “we already know”, I mean myself and a few other people, including those of you reading this. So it seems that the first thing to try to do is to make these ideas known as soon as possible to as many people as possible. And if possible by people who want to spread them and use them until they are known and used by the majority of humanity. I estimate that this global process could take between 20 and 50 years. If there are still humans in that time. It seems long, but time passes quickly and important results can be achieved early on. Therefore, the earlier the better (see text on Human Present and Future).

Here is a summary of what wise people can do.

Tasks for thinkers

Mayr says: “Non-scientists tend to naively assume that when a new scientific explanation or theory is proposed, it will be accepted without delay. In reality, in very few cases has this happened…” and then: “Many important works go unnoticed, sometimes entirely, because they have been published in Western European languages other than English” [28]. I have published an English version of Supervivir amando. (See) And I think Ortega also says three things which I quote from memory: something about how it takes years to “see” new ideas; something about how you only see what you know and look at; and something about how, to be seen and understood, new ideas need the environment and atmosphere to be conducive. The parable of seeds falling on good soil and bad soil is also applicable.

I sense that the worsening environment of our humanity will make it easier that, sooner rather than later, these ideas will be seen and taken up: said by me or said by others.

These ideas are not contrasted and publicly disseminated by scholars with the authority to do so. Not belonging to the academic world makes it difficult for me to relate to experts who might look at, see and judge my propositions. The very few to whom I have been able to gain access have a lot of work to do. And I suppose that what they see at first glance does not motivate them to devote time to ideas put forward by an amateur. And that, moreover, would force them to change many of their paradigms.

I am told that young researchers are more likely to devote more attention to them, but as they are not famous I do not know them. The few I have reached, both philosophers and biologists, are also either very busy or are specialists in something surrounding my ideas and deal only with what they know and are interested in. And they soon give up as soon as they see the real breadth and complexity of my proposals.

I ask the wise people reading this, both young and old, to try to look and see my ideas and tell me what they think. Or if you know anyone who might. I for one would be happy to sponsor the work of a capable person or persons who would spend some time to test these ideas and publish the result.

Naturally I am also addressing the managers of universities and foundations. And to the managers of public and private bodies and organizations who are engaged in thinking about these questions related to the welfare and governance of humanity and its groups. Both secular and religious, environmentalists, humanists, “think tanks”,… You can write to me and we will look for ways of collaboration.

Thank you for getting here. J. Corral

References

[0] Corral Lope, José:

. Supervivir. Ideas para una ética universal. Madrid, Letras de Autor 2015

. Supervivir amando. A universal ethical principle. Madrid, Letras de Autor, 2016

[1] Arana, Juan: Los sótanos del universo. Madrid. Biblioteca Nueva, 2012. Pág.263

[2] Mayr, Ernst: (1995) Así es la biología. Barcelona. Peguin Debate, 2016. Pág.147

[3] Dobzhansky, Theodosius: and others (1977) Evolution. Barcelona. Omega, 2009.

[4] Gould, Stephen: The structure of the theory of evolution. Barcelona, Tusquets 2004.

[5] Monod, Jacques: Chance and Necessity, Paris, Seuil, 1970.

[6] López-Moratalla, Natalia:

. Cuestiones acerca de la evolución humana. Pamplona. EUNSA, 2008

. Inteligencia artificial ¿Conciencia artificial? Madrid. Digital Reasons, 2017.

[7] Segura, Evelyn: Adapt or die. Barcelona. Paidós, 2019.

[8] Kant, Immanuel: Filosofía de la historia. México D.F. Fondo de C.E. 1941.

[9] Barash, David P. Private correspondence.

[10] Sequeiros, Leandro: New Perspectives on Evolution: Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb. Málaga, Bubok, 2022

[11] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Madrid, Gredos, 2014.

[12] Kant, E. Philosophy of history. México. Fondo de Cultura Económica. 1941.

[13]Trigo, Tomás (ed): En busca de una ética universal: un nuevo modo de ver la ley natural. Document of the International Theological Commission and commentaries. Pamplona, EUNSA. 2010.

[14] Hume, David; Inquiry into the Principles of Morals. Madrid, Alianza, 2014

[15] Ruse, Michael: Une défense de l`éthique évolucioniste. In Fondements Naturels de L’Etique de J-P Changeux. Paris, Odile Jacob, 1993

–Taking Darwin seriously. Barcelona, Salvat, 1994

-(2001): Can a Darwinist be a Christian? Madrid, Siglo XXI, 2007

–Charles Darwin. Madrid, Katz Editores, 2008.

[16] Wilson, Edward O. (2012): The social conquest of the earth. Barcelona, Debate, 2012.

–The future of life. Barcelona, Galaxia Gutemberg, 2002.

[17] Damasio, Antonio (2010): Y el cerebro creó al hombre. Barcelona, Ed. Destino, 2013.

-(1994) El error de Descartes. Barcelona, Editorial Crítica, 2006

[18] Kant, Emmanuel:

–Crítica de la razón pura. Madrid, Librería Bergua, 1934. P. 354- 2nd volume

[19] Teilhard de Chardin (1965): Science and Christ. Madrid, Taurus, 1968.

(1955) The Human Phenomenon. Madrid, Taurus, 1965.

[20] Darwin, Charles: The Origin of Man. Madrid. Editorial Edaf, 9th edition 2009.

[21] Hands, John (2015): Cosmosapiens.  Madrid, La esfera de los libros, 2017.

[22] Koprotkin, Piotr: Ética. Barcelona, Dogal Books, 1977.

[23] Jonas, Hans: (1979) El principio de responsabilidad. Barcelona, Herder, 2004.

[24] Morin, Edgar (1965): Introducción a una política del hombre. Barcelona, Gedisa, 2002.

–La vía para el futuro de la humanidad. Barcelona. Paidós, 2011.

[25] Pfaff, Donald W. (2015): The altruistic brain. Barcelona, Herder, 2017

[26] Klein, Stefan (2010): The generous revolution. Barcelona, Urano, 2011.

[27] Trivers, Robert. Personal correspondence.

[28] Mayr, Ernst. [2] See my Survival and Altruism  p. 15

[29] Corral, José. See my Supervivir. P. 339

[30] Popper, Karl (1961) La miseria del historicismo. Madrid, Alianza, 2008.