Preventing Extinction

Introduction

We, the members of the human race, are gathered together at the edge of an abyss.

We are being pushed closer and closer to the edge by the course of events which appear to be beyond our control.

If we go over, nothing the human race has ever done in its entire history will mean anything.  We have made wonderful pieces of art and built fantastic structures.  There will be no one to appreciate them (if they are aren’t destroyed in the events that destroy us), after we are gone.  People have fought for things they believed in and won victories. Beliefs will no longer mean anything if there are no people left to hold them.  There has been a lot of love passed along over the 50,000 years or so that humans have been here, and many organizations have been created to do good deeds.  We have stories and songs, memories, books, and have made some great scientific achievements.

This will all become meaningless.

A lot of people are crying about this.

A lot are praying. They beg whatever gods they believe in to fix things for us.

A lot of people do something they call ‘protesting.’  They carry signs saying 'this is not what I want to happen and I want someone to fix it for me.’  They hope that there is such a thing as ‘someone who can fix everything’ and this someone was undecided and considering helping but just hasn’t been asked;  having seen the protest sign, she will step in and fix it all.

Some people write letters to the people who they have been raised to believe love them deeply, love the human race deeply, and are trying to fix it all:   They write to the entities called ‘governments’ of the things called ‘countries.’  We will see that governments of countries were never designed to, and are incapable of, bringing the human race together to work on common goals.  In fact, this is the exact opposite of what they were designed to do.  (Government of countries are designed to protect the interests of the small percentage of the world’s people that are in that ‘country’ regardless of the costs.)   Relying on them to save the human race or make the world a better place for all to live is as naive as a flock of sheep relying on wolves to save sheep everywhere from predators.

We hold hands and sing Kumbiah.  We practice random acts of kindness.  We try one religion after another, hoping we can hit on the right deity or deities (the ones that really exist and are in charge of everything), and give the people who represent them here on earth enough money to convince them to use their power over the gods to get the gods to do what we want done (saving the human race) rather than the things the priests and shamans want done.  We waste our wishes upon evening stars or when throwing coins into fountains:  rather than asking for selfish things, we ask for world peace, or a clean world for future generations.

None of this helps. We move closer and closer to the edge every day.  The crowds are getting denser and pushing us harder and harder toward the abyss each day. Soon, the pressure will be too great and we will have nowhere to go but over the edge.

A Different Approach

In ancient times, people who proposed using logic and reason to look at our world were considered dangerous.  The leaders wanted people to accept things on faith:  the world works as it does because it is supposed to work that way.  These troublemakers were trying to convince people to not accept the things that the leaders asked them to accept, and not to turn themselves into cogs in the mechanisms of society, without asking questions and getting answers first.  People who proposed we ask first before we accepted the things the authorities and leaders told us were often arrested and removed from society, often by execution.  (Socrates, Pythagoras, and Sir Tomas More were these kinds of troublemakers.  All of them were ‘removed from society’ this way.  Socrates and More were given trials first—for show, if for no other reason—but Pythagoras was simply lynched; he was considered far too dangerous to be allowed to speak at a trial.)

Times have changed, at least a little.  People who use analytical tools are being accepted, at least in some areas, even when their findings tell us that things that the people who run the system we live in would prefer we not know.  People are gaining enough confidence in the logical principles that they are willing to accept them, even if they go against the things that they/we were raised to believe.

For all of history the leaders have told us that not to worry about such things.  It is not our place to ask certain kinds of questions.  There are complex principles behind the workings of the world around us that are beyond the understanding of normal people. Some say these are religious principles involved:  the gods, or a single god for monotheists, want the world divided into countries that fight brutal wars over territory.  We are not to question the will of the gods. It is not our place.  Others claim that other mysterious forces like quantum entanglement, the uncertainty principle, or long sequences of random choices that explain it all, but which are so complex we could never understand them.   We are not to ask these questions.  They are too complex and thinking about these things would drive us insane.  In any case, it is not our place.  The ones in charge will teach us what we will need to know, when we grow up and take our place in the system around us.  They organize schools and teach us these things. They don’t do this to control us, even though accepting the things they teach us gives them the ability to control us. They do it because they love us more than anything and want the best life for all of us.

Sometimes, we see things that seem to indicate that the principles they asked us to accept don’t really hold.  They taught us to be wary when we see apparent contradictions.  If our eyes tell us things that go against the things we were raised to believe, our eyes are tricking us and we must use our willpower to force ourselves to ignore the things we think we see and accept that we are actually seeing the things they want us to see.

In recent history, science has lost a lot of its stigma.  It is no longer the domain of the people at the top.   Ordinary people can think logically.  Our phones and internet help us with this.  They show us there is a way of looking at the world that helps us understand things we see without having to accept any kind of beliefs that we have no evidence are true.  Children are even being taught to accept science, at least in some areas, without reservations.  It is acceptable, for example, to use science to help us design new kinds of nuclear bombs.  In fact, emotion is banned from this area:  people who design nuclear bombs must never use emotion, feelings, or even prayer to solve problems.  They must solve the problems using pure and uncontaminated science.

However, it is not considered acceptable to use science in other areas.

For example, why do we want nuclear bombs in the first place?

What are the forces that cause the human population to divide into the entities called ‘countries’ and fight, using tools like nuclear bombs, over the locations of the imaginary lines called ‘borders’ (or whatever it is we are fighting over).  How did this system originate?  How did it evolve?  Is it the only system possible?  Have other systems existed?  How did they work?  What are the scientific principles behind ‘countries?’  What are the scientific principles behind territoriality in general?  How do the incentives, the reward systems, and wealth transfers that reward bomb makers work?  What are the logical explanations for the forces that lead us to plan, decades or even generations in advance, to organize mass murder events on an unlimited scale?  What are the benefits that these activities bring and are they really greater than the costs?

We are taught about the entities called ‘countries’ in school, but not in any scientific way. We first learn about them in songs. (Children can understand the feelings created by musical sequences long before they can understand complex arguments.) The songs tells us how the gods (single ‘god’ for monotheistic education systems) love our countries, bless them, and guide them through the night with a light from above.  They tell us how one country, the one that we will be asked to help build bombs to protect, has liberty and justice for all, it is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that love flows both ways, from the land to us and from us to the land.  We pick one of these countries and pledge allegiance to it.

Or, actually, that isn’t right, we don’t pick.  We are never given a chance to compare them and determine which one we want.  Whichever one controls the land where our mothers were located when they gave birth to us is ‘our country.’  That is the one to which we must make our solemn pledge.

We memorize the names and dates of war after war after war, and learn about the wonderful heroes that brought all of the wonderful qualities the world is claimed to have, but which aren’t defend in any logical way that would tell us whether these qualities even exist.  If we study long enough, we can learn the reason for nuclear bombs:  there are evil countries and good countries.  If not for the evil ones, no one would need nuclear bombs.  But the evil ones hate us and everything good and are trying to destroy everything we love and care about.  We need nuclear bombs to level the playing field so we can defend ourselves against the evil ones.

What is the science behind these things?  We know there is science behind nuclear bombs.  We can look up information and read and read until our eyes are too tired to focus and our minds are numb.  The scientists know absolutely everything about nuclear explosions, nuclear fuels, nuclear bomb triggers, and the numbers of people that each different type of bomb will kill if it is dropped on our city.

But what his the science behind a ‘country’ or a ‘war?’   What are the scientific definitions of the things we are told we are fighting for, like liberty, justice, freedom, and democracy?  How can we use logical analysis to show that the people who will be killed when the bomb drops are opposed to these things and are going to prevent use from having them if they remain alive?  These are things we are not taught.  They are questions we are not encouraged to ask.  Those who try to use science to analyze these things, and then claim that they don’t appear to work as we are told, are called traitors.  They are supposed to love their country unconditionally. The fact that they are using logic and reason to analyze these things shows us they are not thinking the way we all know we are supposed to think and expressing doubts and encouraging skepticism about things that we are supposed to accept on faith.

In some areas, logical analysis and science are totally fine.  They are not just allowed, they are encouraged.  It is acceptable to use it to build nuclear bombs and cause infinite misery and death.  It is not acceptable to use science to ask why we feel the need to cause this misery and death or how these acts are supposed to make life better for the human race on this planet.

A Scientific Understanding Of The Human Condition

This book proposes that we can use science to understand the way the systems we call ‘societies’ work. It proposes that these societies are not directed by sprits, feelings, karma, or mystical forces of any kind, but can be understood just as thoroughly as we understand the laws of chemistry or the basic principles of genetic codes in DNA.

It proposes that the type of society we have now on earth—the one that divides the human race into different groups, each of which claims and enforces exclusive rights to a certain part of the planet—is only one of many different ways that thinking beings with physical needs (the group that includes humans) can organize themselves/ourselves.

It shows that we can analyze societies scientifically.  It shows that the basic forces of the kind of society we inherited from our evolutionary ancestors on earth (territorial sovereignty societies, see text box below) push inextricably toward violent conflict and destruction.  This happens for very clear scientific reasons that have nothing whatever to do with ‘evil’ or ‘bad karma’ or any bizarre intentions of invisible superbeings who live in the sky and enjoy watching the killing.

Nature likes to fill all niches. In some cases, there is a niche at the very top of pyramids that has no real checks and balances to keep the population from exploding.  In these cases, nature often divides the animals into individual groups ('packs' for wolves, ‘prides’ for lions, ‘troops’ for chimpanzees and gorillas, and 'countries' for humans) and has the groups fight each other, to the death, for territory.  This allows the population to remain stable and culls out weak and less-capable groups, keeping the genes of the animals that survive strong. The underlying principle of these systems is called ‘territorial sovereignty.'  Each pack/pride/troop/country fights over territory and the winner gets ‘sovereignty’ over that territory.  Societies built on this principle are called ‘territorial sovereignty societies.' These societies are brutal and savage, but they serve an ecological purpose, at least for lower animals.  They fight other packs/troops/prides to the very end, using any tools they can, and this only makes the genes of their species stronger by wiping out the less capable.  (This would be done by predators if they had them, but beings toward the apex of their food chain don’t have enough to do this job.)   They worked for early humans too, doing the same thing.

But societies that divide a species into groups to fight each other until every last individual on the other side is dead do not work for beings that have the ability to make bombs that are capable of destroying the world.  Once a species gains the ability to wipe out everything, the ‘fight to the end of everything’ model of society no longer works.

We need another model.  Even if we loved this system with all our hearts, and wanted to keep ourselves divided into ‘countries’ so we could compete in wars for the rest of time, we could not have this.  this kind of system can’t work for us.  We need something else.

Preventing Extinction shows that there are other kinds of societies that are almost identical to the type we have now (territorial sovereignty societies) and very similar in all of their features, but operate in ways that allow the human race to work together in practical ways to accomplish goals that we (where ‘we’ means ‘the members of the human race, acting collectively’) have decided we want to work toward.  It shows how we can build structures that cause the path the human race is taking through time to shift.

Rater than gathering together at the edge of a cliff, with the basic forces of the societies we inherited from our animal ancestors creating ever increasing pressure that is pushing us over, we can veer off in a different direction.  We can head toward sound, safe, stable, and sane societies.

We are at a unique time in history.  We are learning that many of the  things people have believed for all of history are, in fact, wrong.  We are learning that things that people have been told and have believed are totally fixed and are unchangeable are, in fact, under the control of the dominant species on this world, the human race.  These things are not fixed at all:  they can be changed, if we, the people of the world, want to change them.  We are learning that science isn’t a bogyman that we must bury our heads in the sand to avoid, but is a key that can unlock enlightenment and allow us to solve problems we have been trying to solve for all of time using our emotions, but have been unable to solve with these tools .

Preventing Extinction shows we really can change the variables that control our density.  But we can’t do this with closed minds.  To do it, we must be willing to accept the things our own eyes tell us, even if they go against things people have believed were true for all of  history.

If we want to prevent extinction, we have to do a lot.

We have to change the mindset of the human race in ways that will get people to start working for the benefit of the human race rather than for the benefit of the specific territorial group (country) that they were raised and educated to believe is ‘their country.’  We need to create tools that make it possible for them actually make a difference, once they have decided it is the right thing to do.  We also have to keep the problems that threaten us under control for long enough for the structural changes to take effect.

I wish there were an easier way.

I wish that I had reason to believe there really is a all-powerful superbeing in the sky who will fix things if enough people mumble for it to do so.  I wish that wishes worked to fix problems.  But I don’t have any reason to believe these things. I know that I am a physical being that can affect the realities of the world around me by actually doing things.  I know that there are eight billion other similar beings in this world who have this same ability.  I know my words can turn into their thoughts and these thoughts can help them come around to the above way of thinking.

I know this is not going to be as easy as crying, wishing, and praying for some outside power to help us. But I just don’t think there is any other way.

I hope you will take the time to understand the points of this e-book.  It deals with unconventional ideas.  This means that it isn’t going to fit easily with the things you were raised to believe about the way the world works.  It proposes that we evolved from primitive and barbaric animals and are only now barely gaining the ability to live as semi-intelligent beings.  It proposes that the societies around us are not truly human societies, built by intelligent humans for others of their kind.  They are animal societies, the same as societies of animals that existed long before we evolved who clearly didn’t have the intelligence to build logical systems.  These societies operate accordance with rules that apply to savage, barbaric, and totally irrational animals.

It proposes that we can build societies that are logical, sound, reasonable, designed to meet our needs and fully capable of doing so.  It proposes that there are tools we can use to transfer rights and powers from the entities that have all the power now (the entities we call ‘countries’) to the one entity that has the best interests of the human race at the top of its priority list:  the human race itself.  It shows that this is a process and has several steps. If we accept this is a process, and accept that it will work if we go through it, we can gain the confidence and courage to embark on a path that will take us to sound societies.

No one is going to do this for us.

If we want it done, we have to do it ourselves.

Share on X

Share on Facebook

Comments (5)

  • Ken Cutlack

    |

    Was just browsing the site and was impressed the layout. Nicely design and great user experience. Just had to drop a message, have a great day! 8dfds87a

    Reply

    • Annie Nymous

      |

      Thanks for the input. Tell your friends. The site is still under construction and I don’t have its features up, but I want to get people interested in the topic. Annie.

      Reply

Leave a comment