The Vital Imperative – 1

Basic idea:

• The purpose of the man species, like any other species, is survival.
• Summarizing the phrase above, “the main porpoise of Man is the survival of the species/to survive as a species
• Elaborating some more on the statement: the first and last objective/purpose of each man and the Man species is, like any other species, to survive.

And to that and for that, be or getting to be better (stronger, more saintly, more sociable, better, wealthier, more adaptable, healthier, wiser, ¿more numerous? ¿crueller?).  Generally speaking, it would involve being more of all that is “thought”, conscious or unconsciously, that which is better and more efficient for the conservation, or perpetuation, or survival of the species, at any given moment in time.

Each individual, family, tribe, nation, etc. will typically translate this impulse to the survival of the individual, family, group, tribe, clan, nation, etc. according to the circumstances and culture of each one of them at any given time.

• All the above, meaning the purpose, imperative o basic mandate, and its ramifications, is genetically inscribed in each individual of every species. And it is self-explanatory, according to the culture of each individual or collective in each moment, although, logically, in a fragmented manner (namely, only in as much as that which affects every one in that particular moment, including history).

However I’ve yet to find any paper, statement, political principle, ethics, morals, religious dogma, etc., in which this basic objective of the Man species is made fully explicit.

I have firm and profound beliefs in the urgent need of spelling out these ideas and acting accordingly.

If this basic or fundamental objective happens to be true, its proclamation and its conscientious and actual assumption must lead Humanity and Mankind to revise its moral and ethical values. Also they must facilitate the practical stirring of personal and collective actions of men at once.

• Obviously, this basic principle, traditionally inscribed en every man, has guided his actions and the actions of every other human group since their origins up to now, and it will do and keep on doing it in the future. That´s why men tend to be “better” as a way of being more efficient for themselves and their species.

One might think, in view of the above that we are not in need of the explanation I advocate. Even so, mi entrepreneurial experience and the little I know on other disciplines, lead me to believe in the immediate necessity of this objective been explained, known and explicitly undertaken pertaining all human activities and all human groups, from the smallest to the whole of the species.

I´m currently such a firm believer on these ideas that, unless convince otherwise, is my intention to dedicate myself first and foremost to their study, development, divulgation and application for my remaining years. In the idea of this being the most important task that can be undertaken for the benefit of mankind, which comprises the benefit of the species as well.

• I feel that, in light of these ideas, all practical questions that matter to each and every man can be satisfactorily explained. That is to say, what is the meaning of life and how best to live it.

Clarifying the above, I don’t see how the idea of the “objective of survival” we are currently dealing with can satisfactorily answer the questions “who are we”, “where do we come from”, “what are we”. But it can answer the operative enquiries “What do I have to do?” “Why am I here?” “What’s my purpose in life?” and, most importantly, “What do I have to do to be happy?”.

It´s also clear that the assumption of this Basic Idea will bring along the modification of some ethical principles birthing a “Human Global Ethics” or “Man´s Ethics” or “Universal Ethics” if you want all other species to be included as well. This Ethical system will be somewhat different to the ancient and current ethics, as it will be different, in its applications, for the various cultures.

As a western sample we´ll have to revise the ideas and principles of the modernity, the postmodernity and the ultra modernity in order to adapt them to the Basic Idea, which I declare to be permanent and unique in its relevance. Even though it might be partial, contingent and plural in its theoretical development and above all, in its practical applications to different collectives and times.

• I sense that the Basic Idea is true and operative within any religion or belief system and it does not contradict, but reaffirms, every doctrine that ever was and is regarding the so called “human rights”. I also believe that all human history makes sense by the light of this Basic Idea.
• I also have the intuition that the practical applications of this Basic Idea must promote and expedite the following (as an example and in no particular order)
• The conservation of the Earth
• The investigation and development of space programs to look for places to inhabit once our planet ceases to be hospitable for whatever reason.
• Genetic improvement
• Possibly the reduction in the number of individuals of the species (through birth control or other technics)
• The creation or improvement of a World Agency that deals with seeing, thinking, undertaking, developing, deploying and controlling what the Idea entails.
• A bigger conscience of belonging to the Human Race and of brotherhood amongst men, and of men with the rest of living beings in the universe. Building up attitudes, flags, symbols, groups, etc.
• Fear to extinction by natural disasters and, overall, by men´s own actions.
• I believe that the philosophical thought has become obsolete in relation to technical skills. In any case it hasn’t move, which is why it has to make an enormous and prompt effort of development so as to adapt man´s historical knowledge to this idea.

As far as I know, which is very little, philosophy has dealt and deals (unsuccessfully so far) with thinking of “what we are”, “how we are”, “where we come from” etc. That´s regarding Man as a species and as an individual, motivated by the pure and noble appetite for knowledge (also imprinted in man as a tool for survival), and for trying to get everyone of us to be better and happier (or so it was at least with some of the clasics).

In my opinion up until now It has lacked a certain enthusiasm when wondering “what should Man do” and “what is the goal or purpose of the species”.

• Religions have tried to answers these questions, and the answers have been, more or less, as follows:
• Live in a way that allows you to go to heaven or paradise when you die, instead of going to hell.
• Perfect yourself through certain actions as to become better in successive reincarnations
• Politicians, for their part, have been and are very busy getting and keeping their power so they can try (if we talk about the good ones) that their tribe, collective, community or nation survives and improves, even at the expense of their neighbours, and it usually is, which causes more joy to the people and more votes to the politicians.

In the “Millennial Summit”, celebrated at present (year 2000) at the UN, the objectives proposed have been partial and second rate, without making explicit the first purpose, and so rendering them lame and without strength. And so no one believes in them apart from the naïve and pure of heart, which have little to do in these areas. Also, almost nobody has hear about it, as is common.  It goes, more or less:

• Improve relationships between nations.
• International peace and safety.
• Eradication of poverty.
• Human Rights.
• Protection of the vulnerable.
• Attention to Africa´s needs.
• Strengthening of the United Nation´s organization.

In the absence of reading the whole declaration, these are partial objectives that in principle seem to favour the attainment of the Basic Objective, but they were not thought of with that intention so its possible that some of those actions are not the more adequate but counterproductive.

• As another example, the assumption of the Basic Idea could lead to the creation of a strong world organism (maybe even a world Government) that would act as management of the species and would lead it towards its goal of survival.
• I think it´s possible that the Basic Idea might be better understood by company men than by philosophers or even politicians.
• I believe religions can also help to the circulation and entrenchment of the idea, as it might make sense at there being a “god” at the end of the human concept.
• All the latter it´s still formulated at an embryonic stage. It is my intention, either alone or with whichever help I can get, to keep on advancing this idea and its applications, which I sense to be huge, in every field of knowledge developed by man.
• When it comes to entrepreneurial endeavours, there are also difficulties explicating the terms. Depending on trends, this goals may be enunciated as “increasing market share” “more sales” “get bigger” “earn more” “creating value for the shareholders” etc. These are still partial goals. I believe that surviving is also the most universal and permanent business purpose, however it´s not explicit and that creates distortions.

I set it as an example of a corporation also having a lack of elemental vision. But currently there´s more and more awareness on the importance of choosing and naming the goals correctly and of these objectives being known and assumed. This has being one of the key concepts of business development. My experience has taught me so.

• Every nation and, generally speaking, every human group, functions better if they have their goals or “ideals” clear. For instance like they do in times of war or emergency.
• Individuals have the basic objective engraved in their conscience, in their genes. Thus, like any other species, they tend to act in accordance: they breed, try to be stronger, wiser, healthier, looking through doctrine, culture, whatever teaches them the better way.

And each “culture”, also inspired by the Basic Idea; tends to survival trying to make better societies to survive in and make them stronger. They just need to “recognize” they do it because they are part of a whole, the human species, which has the primal and permanent mandate, the categorical imperative to survive, and be better to do so.

I doubt if  “being better” is also a primary objective. In any case, as you can’t be better without being, it seems as if the objective of survival is prior or primary to “being better”.

It must also be contemplated what is “being better”. This task of determining principles and efficiency and moral guidelines is greatly facilitated if drawn from the basic objective though. Meaning it will be good/better that which is mainly heading to facilitating the survival of the species, and so, it will be worst whatever endangers or hinders it. The Basic Idea can and must function as an ethical (even aesthetical) hallmark.

There will also convey, within this new ethic, individual acts of indifferent moral value, although if we agree to acknowledge the “butterfly” effect, those with an strict view could, undoubtedly, straighten their consciences with little room for error in light of this basic ethical principle.

• Recently and for the first time, I´ve come across an idea in a newspaper that touches lightly upon the Basic Idea. The journalist advocated the creation of a world symbol. He said that people from Aragón (a province in Spain) would throb with emotion before the image of the virgin of El Pilar, the Spaniards before the flag and so on, but there wasn´t a symbol for Humanity. This is, graphically and naively illustrated, the Basic Idea. We would have only to add the notion of survival.
• Evidently, within the new “global ethic” exists the possibility of evil and evil people. So evil, in different degrees will be:
• That which directly attempts against the survival of the species. E.g. the destruction of vital resources, pollution, wars.
• That which hinders or prevents the improving of the species.
• That which disfavours the realization of the basic objective.

All of this implies a revision of the concepts of goodness, evilness or indifference of human actions, with the added difficulty of learning what is or isn´t good for the survival of the species (make a list of examples).

Obviously, specific moral codes will remain shifting as per the changes in technology and science (biology, use of resources, medicine, etc.). At any rate this would mean modifying the value scale according to the circumstances of the environment and of the demands, perspectives and possibilities at any given time.

• We will also need to translate into individual terms that which is already clear to the group, namely what the specific objective is according to his situation, as well as collectives, regions, countries, etc., seeing as each group will have to contribute to the global objective as per their position and capabilities. That is to say, they must posses their own partial goals, very much as a company does in respect to each branch, department or work centre, which has their own objectives, tasks, regulations in accordance with their own abilities, equipment, market niche, etc.
• The effort of task assigning that´s already been done up to a point (and not too shabbily as per the success and range achieved so far) is key to the efficiency of the process and to the satisfaction reached by each group. Vital fulfilment will arrive inasmuch as they have obvious goals and tailored to their circumstances and possibilities. And we can´t forget about the motivation and incentive methods already in place in many societies, these methods could be adapted to the new objective, which would be joint and shared and so would generate cooperation instead of competition.

The current system of “local” goals achievement and task distribution amongst the various populations and communities produces, in many cases, clashes with each other.  History, current and ancient, is full of war and suffering for this reason.

• Undeniably there´s risk in developing this idea. Having a World Government with power to plan and set operational objectives on a global and local scale could lead to bad decision making due to either incompetence or evilness (greed, arrogance…). The consequences of an error coming from the “Main House” could be huge if it´s an important one or if it impacts many people (genetic engineering, energy manipulation, moral deviation, population control, excessive uniformity…)

Maybe a decentralize government should still exist in order to avoid danger, endowed with a strong method of delegation and control.

All of these secondary but significant concerns would be part of the “new ethics” and of the new theories on how to achieve the basic objective.

Note from 25.11.2006: These lines where handwritten non stop the 11.9.2000 in a few hours. Thus the text is not very organized nor polished. I had barely read a thing about the subject by then, but I think it encompasses almost all of the important ideas as well as some of the unimportant or questionable ones.