Basic Orientation
Book1: R-E Living & "Homo Rationalis"
Book2: Humanianity
Book3: Mind-Body Problem
Book4: (Future Possible Development)
Child Rearing Issues
Philosophico-Religious Issues
Psycho-Socio-Cultural Issues
01 Enormous Good For The Doing
02 Friendly vs Hostile Debate
03 Rational Ethics-Joy in Doing Right
04 Explanation of Humanianity
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
The Twelve Articles
Relevant Autobiography
 
"HOMO RATIONALIS" AND HUMANIANITY
 
HELPING TO PROMOTE OUR THIRD EXPONENTIAL CHANGE
 

PSYCHO-SOCIO-CULTURAL ISSUES

ENORMOUS GOOD IS FOR THE DOING



(The below is something I posted on a couple of message boards, and is one of my efforts at advocacy.)


We (you and I) have the opportunity to do something really big.


Life developed on this planet, and it progressed through natural selection to increasingly complex animals. Eventually, one species developed enough brain complexity to make it possible to make essentially infinite use of symbols and the rules of syntax (language, etc.). This has made us capable of intensive empathy, because we can find out in extreme detail what it is like to be the other. Also, we are able to engage in extremely efficient and complex agreement, including coordination of effort, or cooperation, thus making us extremely powerful (able to do). Add to that the fact that we have discovered and have increasingly used the rules of logic and the rules of evidence, thereby increasing our power exponentially through science and technology, that discover and rely upon extremely accurate models of the way the world really is.


But, natural selection has nothing to do with quality of life. Pain and suffering have always promoted survival of the species, along with joy and happiness. And our above-mentioned tools (language and science) have been in the service of our basic animal nature. So we are talking, hi-tech chimps, making use of our tools for activities that give us joy, contentment, and appreciation, but also pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) .


And to add to our problems, we use the model of child rearing that comes naturally, in our attempt to mold our children into a successful adaptation to a highly unnatural world, where almost everything that comes naturally has to be changed. Since the natural model of child rearing makes heavy use of punishment (as well as reward, teaching, and modeling for identification), and since formal (corporal and noncorporal) and informal (verbal and nonverbal) punishment produces chronic anger (manifested as cruelty, destructiveness, and rebellion), we have become talking, hi-tech, extremely angry chimps, tearing down much of what we build up and engaging in never-ending cycles of revenge and punishment at all levels of our existence, from interpersonal to international.


Humanoblasts build to make the world a better place, while humanoclasts angrily destroy, undermine, and divert such achievements.


But we (you and I) have the opportunity to do something really big. And we (our species) are starting to, though we have a long way to go.


With our extremely accurate models of the way the world really is, we are increasingly learning what things we naturally do that lead to PSDED, and therefore what we should do instead. And it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority of our PSDED is indeed human-induced.


We have always had a set of "ethical" beliefs about what we "should" do, but our ethics has primarily been what comes naturally to us and other higher animals, namely, that ultimately we should obey the most powerful ("authoritarian ethics"). But some of us are just beginning to switch to "rational ethics," my term for ethics based upon the ultimate ethical principle that we should do that which will promote not only our survival, but the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" meaning as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little PSDED as possible. I call this principle the "rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle" (REUEP).


If we lived entirely by the REUEP, and raised our children according to it, life for us would be drastically better than it has ever been. And our government(s) and religion(s) would be drastically different. We would be almost like a different species. Well, if this comes to pass, it follows that, right now, we (our species) are just a "toddler" with much growing up to do.


I don't believe this will "just happen." I believe that those of us that decide to be humanoblastic will have to study, learn, practice, get good at, model, and advocate for a basic-principle-guided life. Those basic ethical principles will have to be discovered, learned, agreed upon, and promoted. They will have to be consistent with the REUEP. (Authoritarian ethics has always allowed and even led to much PSDED.)


Humanoblasts will have to be more effective than humanoclasts.


So, I have tried to do my part to help us in this process of getting started. I have outlined what I believe are the basic principles of anger-prevention, child rearing, and belief management that are consistent with the REUEP.


We must learn an anger-prevention paradigm that will provide us guidance as to how to handle any anger-containing situation, since our basic chimpanzee response to the appearance of anger, either in ourselves or in others, almost always makes things worse.


We must learn how to rear our children without punishment (yes, I said that), with instead a much more highly knowledgeable and skilled use of reward, teaching, and modeling for identification than that which comes naturally. What we do naturally not only fails to produce a set of strong, accurate ethical beliefs but also fails to produce a strong ethical sense that motivates us effectively to adhere to what we believe is right. And combined with the anger produced by our natural methods of child rearing, this ineffective ethics allows for incredible amounts of PSDED.


And we must learn how to work much more effectively toward agreement in belief, but only if that belief is accurate, since inaccurate belief leads to mistakes, which add to our PSDED. Difference of opinion should lead to a far more optimal response than what comes naturally (agreeing to disagree, ignoring, avoidance, ridicule, shunning, attack, excommunication, murder, terrorism). It is only by a certain amount of agreement that we are able to cooperate, and (beyond the exceedingly trivial) there is not a single thing that we can have, or a single thing that we can do, that does not require others to have done their part.


There is no guarantee that the ethical principles that I present are the correct ones, or the best ones, and if better are found, mine should be replaced. The worst scenario is to have none at all and to have no motivation to find them.


And it is we (you and I) that must put forth the effort. If we wait for "them" to do it, it probably won't happen.


The basic "textbook" is (free) at HomoRationalis.com. I ask people to read it (in the order written) only till they come to the first sentence that seems either incorrect or unclear in the context in which it is written, and then to let me know of that sentence. If it can't be fixed, the book fails.


We hold in our hands, possibly, the fates of billions of our children, grandchildren, and progeny in general. A humanoblast surely cannot ignore such a possibility.