IN SEARCH OF REALITY XII




Behavioural Guidelines





A Study in Thought





by





Marius Heuff

@M.Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

The development of behavioural guidelines.
Religion and philosophy; creation and evolution.
The potential for a severe emotional reaction against science and technology.

If we look back upon the history of man, we see, that, almost always, the guidelines for behaviour were sanctified in the form of a religious belief. The manner in which those guidelines were given to society, varied, and ranged from the trance-utterings of shamans and medicine men, or the oracles and omens interpreted by a priestly class, to the more articulate expressions of teachers, prophets and religious leaders, who re-enforced the religious ideals and cultural heritage of their community.

The larger empires developed a more systematised code of behavioural guidelines in order to help those in charge of judgeing disputes. In this way, a written body of generalised guidelines developed, which was supported by the accumulation of specific incidences of judgement, or "precedents". Yet, even the development of a "code of law" was based on precepts derived from common religious beliefs. In spite of the fact, that the ideas of tolerance, justice and essential equality were generalisations that were made possible in the course of frequent and extensive contacts between diverging cultures, these concepts and ideas remained rooted in the common-sense of people, whose ideas were still strongly coloured by the religious beliefs of their social environment.

Slowly, the practice of rendering judgement became separated from the practice of worship, but the concepts behind the laws, mores and customs of society, retained their authority by virtue of the religious belief structures upon which they were based.

As we see in the record of mankind`s history, at times, the religious background of the social guidelines became so fragmented by irreconcilable contradictions, that the moral code of a society lost its footing, and, the result was, often, a frantic search for philosophical truths. Such activities influenced, often to a remarkable extent, the thoughts of the more intelligent members of society, but their conclusions were, rarely, coherent and forceful enough to create a useful model for guiding collective and individual conduct in the form of generally accepted laws, mores or customs, based on philosophical or secular principles of conduct.

The problem is this; the philosopher lacks, by definition, a divine sanctification of his ideas, and, this handicap is so severe, that philosophical ideas seem to get only a foothold in society, if these ideas are incorporated into a religious structure of beliefs. The union of philosophy and religion seems, generally, to have been a fruitful one, because rational thought gives an intellectual respectability to the religious ideas, and, at the same time, rational ideas receive the attributes of authority and sanctity from the religious attitudes and beliefs.

In Christianity, we see a messianic expectation of the Jahwist beliefs of Judaism combine with the influences of Egyptian, Persian and Greek religious beliefs, such as the beliefs of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, the mystery cults of Orpheus and Elyseum, as well as the philosophies of Plato and the neo-platonists. Under the guiding genius of St. Paul, the writers of the gospels and the early thinkers and theologians of the Church, the Christian belief-structures have been welded into a remarkably persuasive, sophisticated and authoritative structure of beliefs. The intellectual re-enforcement of the fundamental Christian beliefs was carried forward by the "Church Fathers", and culminated in the scholastic synthesis of St. Thomas Aquinas. This shows, clearly, how fruitful the combination of thought and belief, intellect and divine revelation, can be.

It is, actually, remarkable, that this formidable structure of thought and belief, (which the Christian Church developed over a thousand years or so), became so widely exposed to severe criticisms, primarily, from an intellectual point of view. The need to define important and fundamental questions regarding the nature of God and Christ, led to the definition of the Christian Faith in precise and authoritative formulations, or "dogmas". These dogmatic expressions contributed to a legalistic and rigid attitude, when dealing with matters of the Faith.

Indeed, the Christian beliefs became quite rigid, as they struggled to define the boundaries of a "truthful" and "correct" interpretation of the divinely revealed realities. Certainty was obtained at the price of a loss of intellectual flexibility, in spite of the many remarkable efforts of thinkers and theologians over the centuries to enlarge the boundaries of Christian truths and acceptability. This rigidity and precision, is, at the same time, the main reason for its persistence as a beacon of Absolute Truth in a confusing world, and, these structures of belief may well survive, long after the wildly fluctuating opinions of secular thought and opinion have disappeared.

At this time, the most serious discrepancy between secular and religious thought seems to be the concepts about the origin and nature of man. Here, the Church maintains a belief in a Divinely Created world-order, which includes the creation of Man. Man`s experiences, his struggle between good and evil, as well as his exposure to suffering, are seen as the result of a fragmentation of the original relationship between man and his Creator in the concept of Original Sin. This makes an existential sacrifice necessary of the God-Man, Christ, in order to re-open the possibility of a Divine relationship between man and God. In contrast, the secular or scientific point of view sees man as a product of natural evolution, not any different from other species` of living existence on earth, and, without any special relationships to a divine intelligence.

The nature and existence of "natural laws" have always been the subject of extensive philosophical arguments, ranging from the idea that natural laws exist, only, as an abstraction of the peculiar, classifying capabilities of the human mind, to a deistic point of view, where natural laws are considered to represent an absolute reality, created by an inscrutable Prime Mover, who does not seem to interfere with his Creation after its clock-work of happenings and events has been set into motion.

The fundamental problem for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of human abilities, is to trace, convincingly, the descent, or rather, the ascent of the human species from the origins of the naturally evolved living organisation, and, to trace, in a flowing line of evolutionary developments, the capabilities of speech and consciousness; of intelligence and belief; of rational thought and the wide-ranging and contradictory behaviour patterns of human beings.

The most difficult question for the naturalist will be to explain the sensation and experience of good and evil; of ethical awarenesses and religious experiences, while the difficulty for the religious believer lies in the fact, (rarely acknowledged), that the answers to questions about the mystery of God and God`s intentions, are intellectually unsatisfactory. With the dramatic increase of our ability to scrutinise the records of nature, we have obtained a large number of insights about our origins and the nature of our existence. These insights make it difficult to maintain a strict belief in the divinity of Holy Scriptures, regardless of the nature or content of the religious belief structures that are being supported by the various Sacred Scriptures.

However, logic has rarely triumphed for any length of time, and, we may see a return to fervent religious attitudes resulting from a reaction of fear and disgust to the confusion and dangers caused by scientific mishaps. It is not difficult to visualise a collective response of horror and aversion for the "evil" sciences, if our scientific knowledge leads, indeed, to an apocalyptic destruction of the world. It would not be too difficult to imagine the sense of disbelief and disgust survivors would feel, after a nuclear accident or holocaust has taken place. Even a deterioration of terrestial conditions on a much less dramatic scale, would lead to an emotional, anti-scientific reaction, especially, if future generations are confronted with the disastrous consequences of industrial waste, the short-sighted exploitation of natural resources, and the wide-spread pollution of air, water and land.

In stead of marveling at the immense capabilities of the human mind, future generations may actively persecute the heritage of the sciences, and, they may try to destroy this heritage, in the belief that they are fighting Satan. Not surprisingly, the nature of science will be judged by its fruits, and not by its philosophical niceties and possibilities of understanding. Little will it matter to a harassed generation, desperately struggling to survive pollution and radio-active contamination, that these same sciences also make us understand, with perfect clarity, the nature of human behaviour, as well as the reasons for the catastrophic consequences of the human way of life.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The marriage of reason and belief.
The importance of the collective will.
Genetic and cultural codes of behaviour.

It is likely, that, man will, once again, be happy to seek refuge in the comforts of hopeful beliefs, as well as in the illusion of salvation through sacrifice and expiation, because, so far, the sciences have failed to account for the need to humble ourselves. Our scientific explanations have not addressed the commonly felt need to confess sins and errors, and, to experience the cleansing purge that comes with a genuine prayer to God.

Perhaps, it would be ideal to renew the marriage between faith and reason with a universal appeal to all the religious belief structures of mankind, but, when we look at history, it is obvious, that the various religious belief structures have never approached a state of global appeal, and, the inevitable division between right and wrong, saved and damned, always re-introduces a pernicious and persistent element of conflict.

Let us note the remarkable and universal appeal of a careful scientific imagery, especially, if this imagery has been based on an appeal to objective observation, careful experimentation, and logical thinking. However, the complexity of the scientific imagery, as well as the difficult transitions between general agreement and widely divergent hypotheses, lead to a feeling of fragmentation and confusion, making the processes of scientific ideation difficult to grasp for the average individual. The inherent tendency of the sciences to fragment into a disjointed series of ideas and concepts, points to the need for a large, unifying conceptual framework, where the scientific imagery may find its proper place in the perspective of an overall vision.

Here, a philosophical approach should start, attempting to unify the ideas of the sciences into a comprehensible and overseeable whole. With the emergence of a unified and widely acceptable image of the way we function, we should be able to form a perception of reality that lets us see, when and where our emotions of hope and belief colour our reality experiences and interpretations. Eventually, we should be able to construct a systematised framework of ideas and concepts, harmonising the methods of rational thought and the results of scientific observations. This will lead to an understanding of our emotional needs and tendencies, because these behavioural trends will be interpreted as a logical result of our biological background and cultural heritage.

On the other hand, we see, all too often, that science and technology behave as a blind evolutionary force, seeking a way to survive whenever possible. We know, now, that this drive has to be guided and directed by the collective human will, and, science and technology should not be left to the dangerous processes of random experiments and haphazard explorations.

Just as we see, that the genetic code of the multi-cellular organism guides the random possibilities of natural forces and organic-chemical reactions into a channeled process, re-creating the structure of a living organism, so do we see, also, that the cultural code of society guides the patterns of human behaviour and channels the purposeful mental energy of human beings into a viable way of life. This viable way of life is re-generated, or re-learned, from one generation to the next, as the cultural heritage of a specific social environment.

While the genetic code has been shaped by the slow and painful processes of natural selection, and has become a heritage of rigid organisation, (beyond the influence of the will of the multi-cellular organism), the cultural code is an instrument of organisation that is very much dependent on the deliberate choice and the collective will of the living members of mankind. While the potential for the cultural code is rigidly inherited and genetically encoded, the content and effectiveness of the cultural code depend on the human will and the faculty of conscious awarenesses.

The cultural code has been super-imposed on the genetic code, because it provides an infinitely faster and more variable fine-tuning of the behaviour patterns of a flexible organism, responding to rapidly changing circumstances. However, the cultural code has the disadvantage, that it depends for its existence and effectiveness on the fragile and vulnerable mechanisms of acquired learning and educational transfer.

Therefore, an increase in the rate of adaptation is paid for by a fragility of the guidance patterns and a loss of dependability and durability. The most important contribution the human life-form can make to the processes of natural evolution, may well lie in the realisation, that this fragile cultural code needs to be shaped and safeguarded by our collective and individual will. Before we can hope to make full use of the opportunities nature has given us in the possibilities of cultural encoding and educational transfer, we have to understand the mechanisms and the responsibilities that have been laid upon us. Before we can hope to explore the possibilities of our biological heritage in a viable and persistent manner, we will have to recognise the inherent likelyhood of placing ourselves in an evolutionary dead-end position.

Just as many genetic codes became a victim of over-specialisation and loss of adaptability, so is it possible for the human life-form to misdirect the wide ranging flexibility of its cultural code into an avenue of development that leads to self-induced extinction. Such a development is possible as a result of a man-made level of environmental pollution that would be incompatible with the continued existence of the human species.

Here, we see the true nature of our human responsibility, which is only now becoming apparent with the increased awareness of our origins and potentials. Only now, are we beginning to understand, how limited and vulnerable the earth`s resources and life-support systems really are, and, how easily we could unleash a process of near-total destruction by ignorance and belligerence, when handling our modern technological tools and weapons.

Our task, therefore, should be concentrated on two main aspects. On the one hand, we should be able to create a globally acceptable and relevant code of behaviour that is just and fair to every individual and every grouping. This code should regulate the interactions of all the peoples and nations of the world in such a way, that the level of tension and mistrust is reduced, sufficiently, to make a sustained and collective effort of cleaning-up and protecting the environment, possible. This would preserve human life for many generations to come. On the other hand, we will have to search, continuously, for a sufficient degree of understanding and cooperation in order to keep this global code viable and just, and, we will have to work hard to make the level of information and comprehension sufficient to ensure adequate attention to a myriad of details and specific problems.

Our common or collective will can only be an effective instrument for change, if a large number of people, from all over the world, are able to identify, fully and enthousiastically, with such a universal code for viable human conduct. We have to be able to recognise, that such a code is really possible, and, deep deposits of encrusted cynicism, as well as many layers of egocentric orientation, will have to be swept away, before we can bend the course of history into a successful avenue for a globally experienced sense of well-being.

Can it be done? Is it possible, at this point in our evolutionary development, to sketch the outlines of such a cultural code, and, even more important; is there a reasonable chance, that such a code, after strenuous scrutiny and debate, could be persuasive and globally acceptable?

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Inter-communal conflicts and mechanisms of cohesion within the large, socially integrated conglomerate.
A review of the biological heritage of small-scale social cohesion.
Leadership functions.
Limitations of the biological foundation for mutual recognition.

After a moment of reflection, it will become obvious, that each one of us lives within some kind of community or social environment, where a variety of rules, laws, customs or mores regulate the behaviour of the members of this social entity. Certainly, during the period of recorded history, we see, everywhere, the presence of some cultural code, binding people together in nearly every civilisation or large-scale social entity, but this code also separates people into classes or casts with differing privileges and living standards.

Conflicts of interest exist, primarily, between groups of people, tribes or nations, and, human history seems to represent an endless succession of conflicts and wars, interspersed with periods of prosperity, confidence, and a measure of mutual trust. Every society is stratified into leaders and followers; the privileged and the common workers; the free and the enslaved.

However, we see, that, within the cultural guidance patterns of many societies, slowly, an awareness of individual human worth and dignity has taken shape. Slowly, the tendency to reflect upon man`s history and the nature of his existence, increases the awareness of similarities between the peoples of the past and the present. People are becoming aware of the similarities between those, who live now and those, who lived in the past; those, who consider themselves to be friends, and those, who are, for one reason or another, enemies in relation to the interests of a particular individual or community. This process of thought and reflection makes people more sensitive to the questions of good and evil; of justice and mercy; of suffering and happiness, and, it makes them sensitive to questions about the meaning of life and death.

We will not try to summarise, here, the history of human awareness, but I hope, that the generalisations drawn from history, will prove to be useful and essentially correct. We see, then, how man lives, always, in some sort of social environment, where he develops guidelines to regulate internal conflicts and encourage a state of harmony, cooperation and viability; where attitudes of dominance and submissiveness are blended to the benefit of all.

Of course, such a modern, psychological interpretation of the function of these behavioural guidelines was totally unknown to the social groupings of the past. In these socially organised or integrated organisms, the struggle for survival took place in its many different forms, even, long before we see the emergence of the specifically human life-form. Still, the struggle for survival takes place, essentially, on a communal scale, and not on an individual level, in spite of the fact, that we see, often, deadly conflicts occur within a social entity as well.

If we see a dramatic increase in the number of internal conflicts within a social environment, (where a struggle for power is associated with ruthless force and civil strife), we may consider such a society to have been dissolved into smaller, antagonistic factions, but, we are still able to see, that, almost all serious conflicts take place between groups of people, rather than between individuals.

This is an obvious, yet important, observation, since we have, here, all the elements of primitive, or rather, biologically encoded human behaviour. We have, here, the local ethics of loyalty and trust within the small grouping, and, we see, also, the synchronised emotions of hatred and suspicion against the outsider. The stress of interhuman relations within a small group is subjugated to an overall cultural code that places the importance of the group above the interests of the individual, but the feeling for, and recognition of, ethical principles is narrowly limited to such a small grouping. Communal feelings of hostility towards the stranger in their midst, or a threatening outsider, are also part of this ethical cultural code, which is strongly influenced by biologically encoded behaviour patterns.

From animal observations, we have learned that social behaviour is, indeed, genetically encoded; at least, it is genetically encoded in those species`, where the forces of natural selection have explored the possibilities of survival by a process of "secondary social integration". Socially integrated animals have to be able to recognise the members of the group they belong to, and, the socially integrated group is, primarily, made-up by members who are related to each other. Growing-up under parental protection with siblings, a human youngster learns, that his security and interests lie within this small group.

As he grows older, he becomes part of the larger community, where the sphere of influence excercised by the leadership becomes the basis for the coherence of the group, because the members of the group share the characteristic that they recognise a particular leader. The basis for cohesion within such a group is, therefore, the recognition, by all the members, that one of them is the leader, and, that this leader has a legitimate form of power or authority over his followers.

Under the intuitive guidance of the leader, the small, natural, socially integrated grouping operates as a behavioural unit and internal rivalries are subdued by the positioning of the members into a hierarchical order, preventing an all-out struggle between them. It is the leader`s function to ensure, that such rivalries do not progress to the point of weakening the group seriously, and, fights are, therefore, often, forcefully broken-up by the leader and his associates.

The biological origins for such behaviour patterns are based upon the natural selection of the ability to lead and to be led. These behavioural differentiations allow the function of hierarchical stratification and social integration, increasing the chances of survival, compared to a solitary struggle. Within each member of such a socially integrated grouping, a process of mutual recognition must be able to take place. This recognition does not take place in a conscious manner, but, as a feeling of "familiarity" with the behaviour and status of each member within the group. This sense of familiarity tends to inhibit the instincts of aggression.

The concept that we are dealing, here, with the inhibition of an instinctive behaviour pattern, is confirmed by the fact, that, at times, conflict situations between the members of a socially integrated grouping have a tendency to flare-up into a fight, e.g., during a struggle for dominance. A fight is also likely to take place, whenever a hierarchical order has become somewhat blurred, and, a member, whose behaviour is not recognised as "normal",(e.g., a wounded, sick or dying animal), is sometimes attacked and frequently abandoned, apparently without any scruples or hesitation. This process of "intuitive recognition" is, in essence, a rigid, biological function for many socially integrated animal species`, and, these mechanisms are not complicated by a myriad of influences and alterations, which play such an important role in human behaviour; where a conscious awareness of loyalties and rivalries leads to the possibility of deliberately chosen, or, deliberately altered, behaviour patterns.

Animals of a socially integrated grouping recognise each other as belonging together, and, this recognition may inhibit, at least to some extent, the instinctive drive to fight, especially, when members of the same species come into close contact with each other. The ability to recognise each other as belonging to the same species, opens the possibility for an emotional synchronisation response, e.g., in a herd of grazing animals, or a flock of birds, where aggressive needs and defensive instincts are pooled in order to secure the food-supply and safety of the group.

Members of the behaviourally flexible species` recognise their offspring as their own. This is, of course, a biological necessity, because their offspring is extremely vulnerable and requires a strong instinct of maternal care, which is "released" by this act of recognition.

The instinct of maternal care is, often, not released by the offspring of another member of the same species, and, the range of recognition is often so narrow, that a newborn member of a community of socially integrated animals is doomed, if it becomes orphaned or separated from its parents. Indeed, no feelings of care or concern are possible in the socially integrated animal, except within the narrow range of its physiological possibilities, which are given by its biological heritage or genetic code.

The instinct of maternal care has been sharpened into the behaviour patterns of the socially integrated, flexible animals, primarily, because of the requirements of species viability, and, the forces of natural slection have molded the genetic code in such a way, that these animals are compelled to exhibit the behaviour of maternal or parental care towards their offspring.

Man comes from an essentially similar biological background, and the idea, that man started to explore the ecological possibilities of his environment as an effectively organised and socially integrated group of pre-human animals, has now been well accepted by the sciences. These pre-human animals were living together in natural groupings of kinship. Slowly, very slowly, the pre-human animal became human and began to change his collective and individual behaviour patterns with the discovery of the ability to manipulate tools and weapons, as well as the ability to manipulate symbolic representations of his conscious awarenesses.

The natural mechanisms of mutual recognition, as well as the genetically encoded patterns for social integration, showed significant limitations when the groupings became much larger. We assume, that every individual of a socially integrated grouping has to be able to recognise every other member of the group, as well as the relative position of each member in the hierarchical order. In addition, every member has to recognise, and acknowledge, the sphere of influence of the leadership, as well as the hierarchically higher members of the social environment, and, it is likely, that this act of recognition determines, to a large extent, the success and viability of the social unit. At the same time, there must be an instinctive ability, and willingness, to protect and shelter those, who are placed lower in the hierarchical order, and, we see, here, the trade-off between the privileges and responsibilities of natural leadership.

There must be a mutually advantageous relationship in such a hierarchical structure of social integration, before the mechanisms of natural selection will favour it, and, such a structure must have biological advantages over a non-structured, individualistic type of existence, otherwise, the mechanisms of natural selection would never have brought it to the fore. The advantage for the "follower" within a grouping, is the protection and guidance received from the leader, in return for an attitude of submission to, and support for, the leader.

There is a natural limitation in the size of such a naturally organised social unit, perhaps, in the order of fifteen to twenty individuals, since a larger social unit runs into physiological limitations of the ability to recognise all the members, together with the hierarchical relationships centered around the "natural leader". A larger social grouping has a tendency to break-up into separate communities, each with their own leader, and, in addition, we see, how some individuals lead a more solitary existence at the periphery of a large group. These solitary animals benefit less from leadership protection, but they are also less dominated by, and less submissive to, the leader of the group.

The larger herds of hundreds, or, even, thousands of animals are not structured into a social organisation, except in the form of numerous small sub-groupings that are related to each other in kinship, as well as through the mechanisms of mutual recognition. These small, natural groupings have a social structure and accept leadership from one member. Such large herds are, therefore, in essence, unstructured, and represent only a mass of animals that moves more or less in unison as a result of similar responses to essentially similar stimuli. The herd may move-on, in unison, because of a response to a synchronised perception of a threat, and, on occasion, a herd may be stampeded into an amorphous, leader-less panic.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The development of the larger society.
Patterns of mutual recognition.
Ruthless extinction of the near-human species`.
The development of speech.
The enlargement of leadership functions.
Language and the genetic code; similarities in the mechanisms of differentiation.
The lawlessness of leadership struggles.

It was, indeed, a remarkable series of developments that opened the way for the human species to organise itself into social entities of hundreds and thousands of members, and, even at the beginning of recorded history, we see, that the requirements for a successful organisation of a large community had already been developed. By the time man learned to record his speech, transactions and thoughts in writing, a long history of social evolution and cultural developments had already outlined most of the mechanisms that make a large congregation of human beings possible.

These factors must have been developed, initially, as a result of the ever increasing demands for cooperation and communication in order to hunt successfully, because ever larger animals became objects of prey for the rapidly enlarging populations of human beings. Later, the trends of task-differentiation, increasing sophistication in communications, as well as the enlargement of the conceptual vocabulary, came more prominently to the fore, as the pressures of increasing population densities and the relative scarcity of game and arable lands forced the growth of larger social nuclei.

We assume, that the potentials for a successful organisation of such a large social entity were provided by man`s biological heritage, but the actualisation of such a complex organisation required the development of capabilities that went well beyond purely genetic programming. This means, that the physiological "anlage" for such developments as conscious awareness, speech and other means of symbolic communications, became part of a biologically inherited human potential, but, the actual realisation of such a potential depended on the cultural transmission of learned behaviour patterns. This, in a nut-shell, was the essence of the remarkable road to world dominance, which the human species embarked upon at some time in that nebulous past.

We have discussed, briefly, how one of the factors limiting the size of a natural social grouping, was the number of members that could be "recognised" and known intimately. Such a limiting factor applied to all the members of a grouping, including the leader. It would be interesting to speculate, how these limitations were overcome, when the need for larger social groupings, finally, succeeded in developing adequate regulators for the behaviour of a large number of socially integrated individuals.

It may well be, that the ability to use a stick or a stone as a tool or a weapon, or, perhaps, the use of certain symbols of communication, increased the ease of mutual recognition, because it became, then, possible to distinguish from the total behavioural complex an easily discernible characteristic. In this way, the process of recognition became a generalised classification of the great majority of the members as belonging to the overall society. Only close relatives and friends could still be known "in detail".

Of course, this type of recognition is a form of classification by common denominator. It simplified the recognition of a member of one`s own group by noting a peculiar characteristic or behavioural trait, such as the use of a specific word, weapon or implement, but, this type of recognition by common denominator must also have sharpened the awareness of the presence of a neighbouring group of human beings, when similar manifestations were recognised in contacts with "strangers".

The mechanisms of symbolic communication, weapon handling and tool usage, facilitated the act of mutual recognition, and, it focussed attention on those tribes, or groups of people, which were developing along similar lines. Fear and respect for the human opponent undoubtedly increased by the almost simultaneous developments of such behavioural innovations in the various tribes, but, those near-human species` or groups of humans which did not keep pace with these developments, were displaced by the competitive expansion of the most successful, most aggressive and most innovative, socially integrated groupings.

This unintentional but, nevertheless, ruthless extinction of the near-human species` in the struggle for survival accounts, probably, for the rather curious isolation in which the human species finds itself. Mankind is a single, narrowly defined species, and, it is the only species that is capable of this range of physiological and cultural manifestations we call "conscious awareness".

The disappearance of our nearest competitors, as well as the pressures man exerted upon related anthropoid lifeforms, explain the reasons for this remarkable gap. It may well be, that the still existing species`, which are close relatives to the human being in evolutionary terms, (the anthropoid apes), only survived by taking refuge into the dense forests, after sharing, to some extent, the border areas between the forests and the plains with the members of early mankind.

The development of cultural characteristics, such as symbolic communications, the use of weapons and tools, as well as other specifics, facilitated, not only, the task of mutual recognition, but, it also enlarged the sphere of influence a successful leader could excercise.

It seems reasonable to consider these mechanisms as some of the fundamental factors that made a large social organisation possible, and, we may, also, visualise a rapid development of the mechanisms of task specialisation, conceptual precision and differentiation, as well as an increasing control over environmental or natural forces, once the basis for a coherent intellectual grasp had been laid. Without exaggerating, it is reasonable to summarise these developments as the break-through of the cultural code.

It is likely, that the initial phase of the break-through of symbolic representation was mediated by sign language and imitative forms of gesticulation, but, the final, most explosive phase of evolutionary development occurred, when the speed of symbolic communications increased dramatically with the development of a flow of verbal symbols; "speech". Because the ability to speak has found a specific localisation in the central nervous system, we conclude, that the ability to speak and communicate with verbal symbols was such an importat factor in the criteria of survival, that all other human or near-human life-forms who failed to develop the faculty of speech, were doomed to extinction.

The ruthless mechanisms of natural selection played, therefore, a decisive role in the early development of the human species. Of course, we may not consider the evolutionary developments that took place prior to the selection of speech, as developments of the specifically human species, but this distinction becomes somewhat arbitrary, because we have no way of knowing, whether or not the fossil remains we classify as "early human", represented beings, who were already capable of speech. If the development of speech took place, after an early awareness of life and death occurred, (as is likely from examining the earliest known burial sites), we must assume, that the most vigorous and ruthless selection by natural force-fields took place within the history of mankind; when the ability and agility of speech became a vitally important factor to escape from extinction.

The ability to learn to speak has been genetically encoded throughout the human species, but, occasionally, this ability may not be fully developed because of a condition of cultural isolation and an absence of fertilising contacts. Even our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, are not able to learn to speak, but it may well be, that the chimpanzee has a rudimentary ability to form concepts, and, it may well be, that these mental images can be communicated by a sign language. If so, this would point, again, in favour of the assumption, that symbolic communications and concept formation started well before the development of speech. However, this technical or physiological ability of speech was so important, that none of the near-human gene-pools survived, because they were insufficiently endowed with the faculty of speech.

We assume, that, with the development of speech, a very rapid expansion of the conceptual vocabulary took place. Again, it is likely, that speech functioned as a powerful recognition mechanism between the members of a community, and, it probably determined, to a remarkable extent, the breeding patterns of these early human groupings.

Speech is a potential function that is genetically transmitted, but the form and content of speech is determined by the cultural "currency" of a social environment. Probably, some biological factors play a role in the development of the cultural content of verbal communications, in the sense, that all human beings classify and categorise events and experiences in a similar manner. However, the cultures and languages of the various societies all over the world differ so much, (especially, groups that have had no contact with each other for many thousands of years), that it is difficult to recognise such biologically shared influences and cultural structures in the form of "syntax parallels". Afer all, a similarity of word symbols would merely indicate a common origin of the content of a language, and, we are, here, looking at the possibility of recognising a similar, biologically encoded structuring of the faculty of speech.

Yet, language similarities in content are an important method to trace the origins and early contacts of human groupings, and, we see, here, a remarkable parallel with natural evolution. A pool of verbal or language symbols, just like a gene-pool, remains remarkably similar amongst the members who use these symbols, as long as there are extensive and intensive contacts throughout the cultural pool. However, when a portion of this pool, (in the form of a specific population), develops on its own, isolated from the others, it begins to diverge from the "main stream", and acquires specific language characteristics that are unique for this particular sub-division of the cultural pool.

If a part of the gene-pool of a species becomes isolated, (whenever a particular population finds itself under specific geographic and environmental circumstances), we see, how this isolated gene-pool starts to change from the main part of the gene-pool, because a different set of environmental pressures will accentuate a different set of genetic characteristics. Eventually, the differences between the sub-group and the main group become so great, that sexual compatibility is lost, and, we have, then, witnessed the differentiation of a new species.

Similarly, we see, how the cultural pool of a group of integrated human beings who have become isolated from the main social environment, develops patterns of expression and communication that are unique for this particular population. Differences between the cultural pool of the sub-group and the main grouping are due to different experiences, and, eventually, the differences in verbal communication and structures of belief become so great, that the groups lose the ability to communicate with each other. A separate language code has been born, and the population becomes, often, a rival of the society it originated from.

We should look at the roles language and belief structures play in opening-up possibilities to organise a large social grouping, because language symbols and beliefs enlarge the ability of mutual recognition, as well as the influence and power of the leadership structures. We have seen, how mutual recognition becomes easier, whenever a specific characteristic binds a group together and sets it apart from all the others. Such characteristics may be represented by various cultural traits, such as the language, structures of belief, common objects of use, tools or weapons, or, even, the way people dress, eat and greet each other.

When a cultural code develops, the conceptual vocabulary and the flow of verbal communications increase, and, these cultural tools increase the capabilities of a leader to exert his influence and authority. Not only, can the leader physically dominate by showing his subjects his superior strength, but he can, now, also show a superior capability for understanding, planning, explaining structures of belief and settling disputes. In addition, he may start to delegate responsibilities for these widely diverging tasks to close and trusted associates. As a natural corollary to the functions of natural leadership, the development of culture and language leads to a vastly enlarged arena for leadership functions, such as planning a common defense, or, activities to provide and preserve food-stocks; by receiving and judgeing arguments in disputes; by giving advise in questions of life and death, and, by leading his subjects in acts of sorrow or jubilation.

However, the main reason for the increase in the range of leadership functions with the development of cultural tools, lies in the ability to organise specialised leadership functions amongst other members of the group, especially those, who have become an expert in one field or another. Here, we see the reasons, why there is an ever varying experimentation with the organisation of social leadership, which has a tendency to evolve from individual to multi-individual structures of leadership.

It is clear, that, originally, leadership, meant, leadership by a single individual in all areas and aspects of human functions and interactions. Members would expect leadership from the same individual in battle and the hunt, but also, in the settling of internal disputes, the experiences of death and birth, as well as in dealing with the mysterious forces of nature. Successful leadership does not just mean the imposition of fear and respect for authority, but also, the stimulation of the attitudes of loyalty and devotion, which are generated by the care and protection a genuine leader gives to his subjects.

Leadership is not a one-way street of dominance. Leadership, even in the social organisation of animal groupings, has to be earned and justified by performing a useful function for the community. So it is in the human society, where leadership, in order to be successful, has always combined authority with concern, power with persuasion, and the imposition of the leader`s will with a self-sacrificing care and bravery in times of need and distress.

Fear and respect are attitudes a leader may, at times, have to cultivate amongst his subjects, but, these attitudes have to be complemented by the attitudes of loyalty and devotion, otherwise, a community is not a community, but a powderkeg, ready to burst apart in strife and violence. Respect for leadership has to be based on credibility, otherwise, authority is only a source of friction and resentment, where loyalty for the leadership has disappeared, and, where the cohesion of a community, the viability of its leadership, and, sometimes, the viability of the entire community, have become endangered.

Whenever the leadership structures, (and the people involved in them), have become clouded by corruption and mal-practice, (where fear and terror replace loyalty and devotion), the leadership has become entrapped in a cage of fear, which is, in essence, of its own making. Such a leadership has to struggle in a desperate attempt to remain alive against the threat of intrigue and assassination. Existential security for the leadership, or its contenders, is then bought at the high price of cruel behaviour and murderous intentions, with the massacre of many rivals. Such a community has become a victim of the existential anxieties of its leader or leaders, and the leaders have become victims of the stifling attitudes of suspicion and corruption, as well as the mechanisms of social unrest.

Such a society is struggling in its death-throws, barely surviving attacks from within or the outside. The lawlessness, corruption and savage cruelty that is associated with a bankrupt leadership system, fills many pages of human history, but, it is interesting to note, that acts of severe cruelty and savagery against rivals are, sometimes, softened by acts of genuinely wise rule and compassionate concern for the people, as soon as the security and authority of the leader has been established beyond a doubt.

It is not surprising, that the deadly struggle for power and the lawless game of intrigue leads to incompetence and cruelty at the top of the social hierarchy, as well as a disturbing imbalance and loss of direction for the rest of society. In the past, larger societies have often enjoyed a somewhat unexpected burst of prosperity and artistic achievements, if, by accident of history, a happy alchemy between leadership and populace led to mutual confidence and loyalty. Now, our cultural tools and conceptual mastery allow us to re-think and re-design the guidelines for leadership functions and leadership succession, minimising the factor of "history by chance", or, history by accident, and, thereby, increasing the effectiveness and wisdom of the common will of the people. Even so, the history of the huge empires of the past, which were established by a small, but effective, leadership, with the will and the ability to dominate vast areas and a number of diverse social groupings, can give us valuable clues about the skills needed to keep a large social conglomerate together.

The need for good communications and a fair system of taxation, the tensions generated by the forced, peaceful co-existence of neighbours within the political framework of a united empire; the stimulating contacts between people who were suspicious or at war with each other; the struggle to maintain order and to be just, the balancing act between the use of force and persuasion; all these efforts of past imperial powers to govern and maintain huge and diverse communities are available for scrutiny, and the insights we obtain from such a scrutiny may contribute to the establishment of an acceptable world-order, as well as a persuasive world-ethic.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The transience of large-scale social entities.
The need for an intellectual grasp over our observations.
The distance between leadership and ordinary citizens in the large social conglomerates.
Attempts to close this gap.
Similarities between Christianity and the large empires of the past.
The power of a creed; Islam.
The failure of the mechanisms of natural selection to determine the viability of a social system.

We will have to look for the reasons, why every society, including every empire of the past, eventually disintegrates, and, we have to analyse the significance of authority and persuasion in the evolution of successful, large-scale social leadership. We will trace the remarkable development from personal authority to divine authority, leading, ultimately, to the awareness, that, we, ourselves, collectively, form the final authority, and, that, we have to decide, for ourselves, how we want to formulate guidelines that provide us with the ability to live in justice, peace and harmony.

Several developments have a tendency to take place in the larger empires or social conglomerates, which may shed a light on our search for such an ethical guidance system. The complexity of the tasks involved to govern the larger societies adequately, usually leads to a deliberate effort to formulate a coherent belief-structure, where all the forces within society, including those affecting the lives of its citizens, are grasped and controled in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying point of view. Another result of the relentless efforts needed to rule a large society, is the enlargement of the distance between the rulers and the ordinary citizens, especially, when the attitude of reverence for authority increases to the point of uncritical adulation.

In such a large society, the complexity of leadership structures, the many and diverse cultural force-fields, as well as the bewildering number of people and institutions ordinary citizens come into contact with, lead, naturally, to a tendency to worship a successful leadership as "divine". At the same time, however, the ordinary citizen finds it more difficult to identify with the leadership of his society, as it recedes into a far-away position of absolute authority. The diversity of the large social conglomerate, the massive number of people, the contrasts between the various sub-groupings, the rich and the poor, the free and the slaves, the powerful and the masses, all these factors tend to make people defensive and suspicious, and, this bewildering complexity of sense impressions erodes the feelings of confidence and loyalty to such a complex and large social conglomerate.

These developments also lead to subtle divergences in beliefs, where the distant, powerful, but, apparently, unconcerned deity of the overall social leadership is replaced by the concept of a "suffering god"; a deity, who knows the bondage and suffering of ordinary people; a god, who can be loved, because of his compassionate concern for man, when he shares with man the misery of death and shows man the mystery of resurrection.

We see, here, an attempt to close the gap between leaders and followers. This is an attempt to recapture the invaluable feelings of loyalty and devotion for one`s trusted leaders, as well as the consoling experience of the care and concern received from one`s own leaders. This trend recurs, time and again, and, the main difficulty for every large empire has always been to give truly individualised, compassionate leadership to the many different cultural groupings within society.

It has always been a difficult problem to know, how to foster faith and trust in a leadership that is distant and foreign to large segments of the population. Too often, the quality and success of such a gigantic leadership structure has been an accident of history, and, as a result, empires have swung, repeatedly, between unequalled prosperity and growth, and a teetering on the brink of collapse; whenever there was an internal revolt or a disastrous threat from the outside.

Christianity began its rise by an appeal to the poor and the oppressed, but, quickly, it became institutionalised and gigantic in scope and organisation. We see, once again, this remarkable phenomenon, where the distance between the ordinary faithful and the leadership of the Church, became so large, that a sense of alienation and unapproachability developed. The emotional appeal of such a far-distant symbol of authority becomes, necessarily, diminished, and the faithful begin to direct their attention and devotion to "intermediaries"; symbols of saintly veneration, who are closer to the common people, and, who can help them with their problems and needs.

In a bold, intellectual revolt against this ever increasing distance between leadership and followers, as well as the corrupting practices of a clergy trying to run a profitable organisation, the Reformation was born, which slashed, once again, the distance between the believer and his God, but, the closeness of the believers to the Word of God allowed them, also, to quarrel about the meaning of that Word. Fragmentation was inevitable without the careful and disciplined approach of a massive organisation, in particular, since the cornerstone of such a unifying and disciplined belief, the infallibility of Peter, had been abandoned.

It is not our purpose, here, to trace the history of empires or the Christian Faith. When people try to live together, we see a large variety of patterns of social integration, ranging from the fundamental and biologically organised relationships between family members, to the larger groupings of the tribe, where cultural and subconscious bonds of kinship achieve a measure of unity. Later in the evolution of mankind, the pattern of social integration extends into a variety of large, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies, where unity has to be achieved through a conscious, deliberate and well-structured effort of honest leadership, as well as a competent form of government.

However, in such large social conglomerates, we see, quickly, the emergence of groupings that are centered around a specific belief or interest, such as the priestly classes, the close-knit brotherhoods of the mystery cults, as well as the Church of Christianity. Later, we see, also, groupings centered around the privileges of a monopolised trade, skill and occupation, as well as the rise of many sub-groupings. Their influence on the character, ideology and structure of these large social conglomerates with their complex governments, is gigantic, indeed.

Islam is a good example, how a simple Creed unified a hitherto dormant and fragmented people, who lived in near-total isolation and mutual hostilities. The inspiration of this Creed released an amazing flow of expansionary energies and resulted in a most remarkable flourish of civilisation. This Creed provided a basis for mutual identification, and the boundaries were sharply drawn against those not willing to participate in this Creed. The strong sense of "we and they", the chosen peoples of God and the infidels, provided the back-bone for martial unity and the holy wars of unquestioned righteousness. The rivalries and assassinations that took place in the struggle for leadership succession, show, once again, the essential lawlessness of the struggle at the top.

We have to ask ourselves, in what way the past has relevance for us. We are only an arbitrary stage or phase in an on-oing evolution of natural social experiments, and, we are becoming more aware of the fact, that, in the final analysis, we, ourselves, are responsible for the kind of society we live in, as well as for the degree of viability we are experiencing.

We are becoming increasingly aware of the need to make collective decisions about the direction we want human developments to take. We see, ever more clearly, that a process of natural, cultural selection in the conflicts between social entities, leads to irreparable damage and unacceptable misery. Apart from ethical objections, the number of societies that can take part in this contest for survival, is too small to let the mechanisms of natural selection refine a cultural mode of behaviour, which would, then, be the most viable way to live and organise ourselves.

In addition, we have seen, why a cultural code is inherently unstable, inevitably decaying in times of prosperity, because it is not encoded in the sequestered security of an intra-cellular, biochemical sequence, but, it exists as a vulnerable and changeable structure of culturally transmittable attitudes and beliefs.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The need and demand for collective decisions and well-reasoned actions.
A review of the present status of social integration.
The sanctioning of national sovereignty.
World-wide public opinion.
Limiting the scope of violent conflict.
The haphazard existence of national boundaries.
Legalising national boundaries; by the passage of time and the presence of political stability.
Rich and poor, large and small nations.
The need for the equalisation of living standards on a national level.
The need for equalising mechanisms between nations.
Human rights.
The rise of global concerns and the world-wide communication of ideas.
The influence of religious beliefs on our attitudes.
The devastation of modern warfare.
Communication and the possibility for deliberate changes in social relationships.

Natural selection, then, has no power to exert a lasting influence upon the cultural code of mankind, and, it has, therefore, no place in the growth and maturation of the cultural code. The human "free will" plays havoc with any attempt to enshrine the cultural code in a genetic type of rigidity. Besides, the cultural code arose out of the need to by-pass the rigidity and slowness of the genetic mode of encoding instructions.

Whether or not we know it, and want it; whether or not we are ignorant and deny it, the fact is, that the collective will, (which is shaped, partially, by uncontrollable emotional forces, but, increasingly by common-sense and rational behaviour), will have to assume the responsibility for formulating a global code of human behaviour.

What is the status of our modern social conglomerates at the present time? Obviously, it is difficult to summarise the overwhelming complexity of contemporary societies on a global scale, and, the chance of finding a more or less useful and acceptable generalisation, is probably small and depends on a stroke of luck. Perhaps, we can start by noting the trend of the world population to crystallise into vocal and competitive ethnic groupings. The larger nations of today are as large as the empires of the past, but many smaller nations are tiny fractions of fiercely independent human enclaves, all clamoring at the United Nations for an equal voice and vote in the affairs of the world, while proudly proclaiming their sovereign independence and right to be free from foreign domination.

The era of colonial or neo-colonial domination is rapidly coming to an end, but, we still see vestiges of elitist domination by a small, white minority over large, non-white, native populations. These are also coming to an end, but not without strife. Social leaderships are yielding to the forces of national independence and majority rule. Large and powerful nations tend to have spheres of influence that extend greatly beyond their geographical and political boundaries, and such an extention occurs, frequently, into the lesser developed regions of the world. These spheres of influence serve strategic, economic and ideological interests, but, even this form of dominance is rapidly creating a suspicious resistance. Fortunately, majority rule by a democratic government, elected by a sovereign people, is becoming the predominant form of government on our planet.

In spite of attitudes of national pride and fierce independence, the peoples of most nations are actively engaged in a large variety of contacts, such as trade, travel and financial transactions, as well as the exchange of news and information. Armed conflicts tend to be limited in scope, and many disputes are solved by a slow process of negotiation and compromise, since the devastation of war on a large scale is, now, so widely acknowledged, that territorial conquest in the traditional sense has lost most of its attractiveness. Certainly, quick changes in the balance of power, as well as decisive actions to fill a power-vacuum, place the antagonistic forces for a fait-accompli, and, we see, how the status-quo is quickly sanctioned by the righteousness of being in control, as well as the persuasiveness of political stability.

The flourishing of trade activities and cultural exchanges on a scale never seen before; the remarkable orderliness of all these transactions, and the de-facto recognition of world opinion as a powerful influence upon national behaviour patterns, all these factors, and many others, have forged the nations of the world already into a state of practical, but tentative, interdependence. At any time, the national sentiments can still be galvanised by clever propaganda into a hostile attitude towards a "wrong-doer", (a nation or group that seems to infringe upon the rights of another nation), but, in many instances, dialogue and compromise have become more attractive than armed conflict.

Since national boundaries become legalised by the passage of time, as well as the stability of the status-quo, the contours of contemporary nations reflect the chances of history and the vagaries of violent conflict. Some, as we know, are huge empires that span an entire continent and have all the advantages that flow from vast natural resources and far-reaching powers. The central governments of such large empires have to remain capable and agile in order to prevent fragmentation and the resurgence of regional nationalism. Other nations are so tiny, so unviable, so forlorn in their poverty and geographical disadvantages, that their existence would scarcely be possible, if the prevailling forces of world-opinion had not given them the moral and legal right of an independent existence.

It seems certain, that many small and independent nations would never have had a chance to exist in their isolated vulnerability, if world-opinion had not inhibited the expansionist appetites of their prowling neighbours. Yet, it is often clear, that this curious, but proud existence as an independent nation, is an economic nightmare, and leads to many difficulties, especially, when we consider the need for a global standard of living conditions and educational opportunities.

The encounter of nations on an apparently equal footing, (when representing their peoples and voting in the forum of the United Nations), sets the stage towards "block-voting", where nations with similar interests group together. A curious distortion of the democratic principles comes to the fore, here, when large and small nations are put on an equal footing, because the people of a very small nation gain a disporportionately large share of representation. This phenomenon is also seen within a country, if elected representatives come from regions that vary markedly in the number of people they represent. However, the obvious discrepancies in power and wealth between nations should temper the heady feelings of sovereign independence with a sober reflection upon the vulnerability of independent individuals or small-scale social groupings.

Just as we see, that, in a social grouping, the principle of "one person, one vote" does not necessarily dispel the inequality of power and wealth, so is the disparity between social groupings not abolished with the establishment of democratic representation within a world-body like the United Nations. Just as we may legitimately ask, within a social entity, what rights the wealthy and powerful have to cling to their acquired or inherited positions of wealth and privilege, so are the peoples of the world justified to ask, what rights the wealthy nations have to cling to their assets and power. Is it fair, that these wealthy nations monopolise the terrestial resources, if they have been fortunate, by geographical accident or past conquests, to control the most favourable areas of the globe?

Certainly, we have to consider the rights of hard work and frugal attitudes, but, as a rule, we see, that the poor are working the hardest and are living a lifestyle of "enforced frugality", or poverty. As the flow of information equalises our ideas about human rights and our ideals about human existence and essential dignity, the question of equal rights and opportunities for all the members of mankind, will be asked more and more often.

Before we condone an all-out grab for wealth and power by the world`s poor, let us investigate some of the reasons for such inequalities, which result from an uneven distribution of the world`s resources, as well as the haphazard geographical boundaries of the various nations. We must ask, why, in so many underdeveloped countries, the same gap exists between the rich and the poor. We see, then, that the ideals of equal opportunity are not realised between the nations of the world, but, neither have they been realised between people who are already living in a politically integrated social entity.

Too often, the poverty and backwardness of a political entity is accentuated by a primitive social organisation, where the leadership is corrupt, and, where the rich and powerful exploit their own country and its people; where ignorance and a prolonged existence in deep poverty and misery leaves the human spirit dull and listless. While clamoring for an equal share of the world`s wealth, the rulers of backward countries will have to account for the way they, themselves, came to power, and, it will not be long, before democratically elected governments will refuse to recognise the legitimacy of any leadership that does not represent the will or the interests of its people. A democracy of equal opportunity between nations will have to be mirrored by a parallel development of equal opportunity for everyone within the national boundaries of every existing national entity.

People, all over the world, are rapidly learning about the ideas of individual human rights, as well as the need for representative and honest government, and, these developments will make the emergence of dictators and autocratic rulers, (who take their positions by force and rule their subjects by intimidation and terror), increasingly more difficult and, essentially, impossible.

In the future, many more of us, common people, will question, not only, the leadership of our own country and the cultural guidelines of our own social environments, but, we will concern ourselves, increasingly, with the leadership of other nations, as well as the conditions under which people in other social environments have to live and work. We will object, increasingly, to the deprivation of human rights, which so many of the people in developing and developed nations still have to tolerate, but, we will see the faults of our own leadership and society as clearly as the short-comings of other nations.

If we may point to one hopeful development in the modern world, it would be this increasing concern, on a global scale, for what happens to people in our own and other societies. Indeed, we are beginning to appreciate the enormous influence of the powerful mass-communications media in making governments sensitive to, and aware of, world public opinion.

It will not be long, before we all know, whether or not the peoples of the world receive fair treatment from their governments. The concepts of fairness and justice are still vague and undifferentiated, and, we are, often, ignorant about the details of local customs and circumstances. We are, still, easily manipulated by biased reports and slanted communications. Nevertheless, there is already the beginning of a functioning world-wide ethic.

Let us try to give these vague notions and feelings more body and conceptual precision, and, let us hope, that we may chart, from these beginnings, the guidelines that are necessary to form a stable and healthy world community. We may, even, succeed in altering the seemingly endless history of strife and combat, which has been the subject of so many events in the past. Looking at history alone, we could easily despair of the possibility to form a harmonious world-order, and yet, looking at today`s world in a truly broad perspective, we see a degree of international integration and a global sense of fair-play and justice, which we would not have thought possible, three or four decades ago.

In spite of the emphasis on strife, wars and conflicts in the records of human history, we seem to witness an increasing awareness of the value and dignity of human existence. In spite of many developments in our contemporary societies, which seem to indicate a perpetuation of follies and a senseless opting for continued strife, we must acknowledge a degree of mutual recognition on a global scale, as well as an awareness of universal moral and ethical values, which seems incomprehensible when we look at the attitudes of people only a short while ago.

It is difficult to pin-point the reasons for this optimism, or, the extent of these promising attitudes, but, we may point to several trends that seem to have played a role in the shift towards global integration. The major religions and, certainly, Christianity in the West, have slowly prepared the human being to recognise, and accept, the common bonds of human needs and aspirations. In particular, the common bond of suffering has led to the ability to identify with each other far beyond the narrow boundaries of ethnic or cultural kinship. In addition, the technology of war has led to the sobering insight, that continued warfare would cause enormous devastation, and, that the distinction between the winners and the losers could easily become irrelevant. This increasing awareness of the fact, that an all-out war effort has doubtful benefits, has been coupled by an explosive development in the scope of international communications.

Probably, this flowering of widespread international contacts is one of the major reasons, why many people have, intuitively, accepted the fact, that no strict or fanatic belief can be completely true. Because of these broad contacts, the fanaticism and narrowness of every religious creed could be broadened into an attitude of benevolent tolerance. This encourages the awareness, that a holy, religious war, is a foolish and tragic misunderstanding of the Word of God. The main emphasis of all religious creeds has been on the development of mercy, charity and mutual understanding, and not on violence and conquest, even, if such a reaction is logical, whenever the enemy shows contempt for the Holy Scriptures.

Another important development in human awareness has been the realisation, that, inequality between social classes, (developing often for poorly understood reasons), does not have to be accepted, anymore, as a divinely ordained social order. We know, now, that every social order can be changed by the collective will of a large segment of the population. The Socialist ideals still have a strongly combative, revolutionary fervor, but the need to rule and govern in success, (after the struggle for dominance has been won), increases the awareness of the essential inequality in human potentials, motivations and achievements, and, these awarenesses can lead to a refined perception of human nature.

These four trends; the mutual sensitivity to each other`s similarities and existential needs, (developed under philosophical or theocentric creeds), the technological break-throughs in commerce, manufacturing and communications, the renewed confidence in the possibility to change the class-divisions within society with collective acts of commonly supported decisions, as well as the widely recognised hazards of all-out war; these four areas of development set the stage, at this point in history, to have a thorough but practical look at what lies ahead for the human species, and, what sort of choices in collective planning and decision-making we have to face.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The need for a package of basic human rights.
The dangers and limitations of elitist attitudes.
Reasons for, and mechanisms of, the attitude of "cynicism".
The problem of corruption.
The fallacy of "salvation" through economic growth.
A need for changes in attitudes, awarenesses and lifestyles.

Few people will disagree with the statement, that we need equality in opportunity and basic rights for individual existence, if we want to form a just and peaceful society. Whether we have been brought-up Socialist or Capitalist, humanist, or in a theocratic society, few of us will argue in favour of a ruthless dominance by those, who have the power to do so, because, we know, that this may lead, eventually, to the extermination of those who are considered to be weak and undesirable.

The disastrous consequences and monstrous inhumanities of such a philosophy have been shown, clearly, in recent history, when racist theories about the creation of a human super-race, became popular. However, even on purely practical grounds, we should realise, now, that every elitist attitude must, necessarily, mobilise the threatened majority, and, this must lead, sooner or later, to another conflict to the death. Any elitist attitude will provoke such a strong reaction, that it is doubtful, at the present time, whether any group of people could successfully impose such an elitist philosophy, once again.

Therefore, few people will deny, on theoretical grounds, that it is desirable to give all human beings who have been born into the family of mankind, basic human rights and essentially equal opportunities to unfold themselves. This means, the right and the opportunity to exist in health, free from hunger and oppression, and, to have a chance to develop, at least, some of our potentials in a harmonious lifestyle of peaceful co-existence with the social surroundings and the world at large.

Few of us will disagree with these objectives, but we become cynical, when we realise, that we lack the means to bring such a lofty objective into reality. We all react immediately with scorn to the superficial idealism of such notions, and, we point to the insurmountable problems about how to create and safeguard a just and equitable society with global dimensions. Who will supervise such a development, and, how can we protect against the inevitable corruption of the powerful bureaucracies and leaderships, which are necessary to implement these lofty ideals?

We scorn these ideas, because we are afraid to be exploited by unscrupulous people. We have seen too many difficulties in the government of a single country, to believe in the possibility of equitable world-rule. We have experienced the corruption and incompetence of people all around us, and, we tacitly acknowledge to be, so often, a part of the same system in order to maintain our position and source of income. We know, in our hearts, that our positions of power, privilege and wealth will suffer dramatically, if we would agree, seriously, to equalise the wealth and resources of the world, and, we are afraid that others will benefit from our ideals and sense of good-will.

This is the reason, why global idealism is scorned, because so many of us have a lot to lose, and, we are not at all certain, that such a development would truly benefit the poor. How often, have we been moved to making charitable donations by the poverty and misery of others, shown so persuasively on television, only to find out, that our sympathies have been exploited by the unscrupulous administrators of charitable funds and the manipulators of public sentiments? How often do we ask ourselves, why the poor nations are so poor, and, why their own governments are not doing something about this? We have been exposed, too often, to the facile exploitation of our emotions, to really believe, that any of our contributions are doing any good.

We do not trust the majority of people in a position of power. We believe, that many officials, be it in government bureaucracies or private institutions, are, primarily, interested in their own welfare, rather than the well-being of the peoples they are supposed to serve.

Idealism, therefore, is not dead as a result of intellectual counter-arguments, but, because of our inability to see, and believe in, a practical organisation that will truly conquer corruption and incompetence. We still believe in essential equality and the dignity of the individual human being, but, we are numbed by the empty oratory and the self-centered posturing of the powerful, as well as the astonishing lack of concern shown by many leaders of the poorest nations for the miserable conditions and circumstances of their own people.

Yet, despite this sea of justified cynicism and skepticism, we should keep in mind the simple truth, that a passive and desperate cynicism does not accomplish one iota, and, that it leads us only into further chaos. We have to diagnose, precisely, why we are skeptical and cynical, and, we have to use the insights we gain from such an analysis to search for ways to contribute to a solution of the problems of injustice and disparity.

If we experience our local governments to be corrupt and inefficient, we should not come to the conclusion that it is, therefore, impossible to design an efficient and honest system of government. At the same time, we should realise, that our modern faith in economic expansion as a panacea for all social ills, including our feelings of restlessness and unhappiness, does not mean, that the viability of the human species can be secured by the mechanisms of ever increasing prosperity and material consumption.

Just as the economic insights of yester-year could not visualise the continuity of economic viability without slaves or serfs, so can we not visualise, at this time, a happy and continued existence without economic growth. Yet, a simple awareness of the limitations of the earth`s renewable and non-renewable resources, makes it an inescapable conclusion, that such a faith in economic growth is the message of a false prophet.

The awareness, that energy from fossil fuels, as well as the exploitation of all kinds of terrestial resources, contributes to environmental deterioration, coupled with the awareness, that the earth and its atmosphere have a limited capability to absorb our ever increasing stream of toxic and noxious waste-products, leads, inescapably, to the conclusion, that mankind, as a whole, has to adopt, quickly, a lifestyle that maintains an equilibrium between the needs of human beings and the ability of our planet to sustain our existence. We have to limit the level of our consumptive habits in order to secure a lifestyle that will carefully consider the ability of our planet to absorb our waste-products. We will have to adopt a lifestyle that represents an ecological equilibrium with the earth`s capacity to harbour us in a condition of justice and essential equality.

I can not see any other alternative, and, a blind faith in our ability to find additional sources of food and energy, or, to develop alternative technologies to sustain our affluent habits, is, not only, a completely erroneous approach to our problems, but, may become the cause for finding ourselves, eventually, in very deep trouble, indeed. Then, we may have to work, frantically, just to sustain our existence. Then, we may have lost the ability to breathe unfiltered air or drink unpurified water. Then, we may find ourselves permanently trapped into a coccoon of life-support systems.

Unless we decide, now, collectively, to come to grips with our lifestyle and bring into reality, at least, some of our ideas about global equality and a frugal use of available resources, we may leave to our offspring the dubious legacy of an appalling terrestial and cultural impoverishment, as well as a dangerously high level of toxic and radio-active waste-products, which may, literally, threaten the continued existence of our genetic code, as well as the genetic code of many other species`.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Limits of natural resources.
A frantic scramble for the last remaining resources.
The hardening of nationalistic attitudes.
Dangerous attitudes of nationalistic leaderships.
The irresistible temptation of power and sovereignty.
Pious dialogues.
No justification for intherited wealth; either personally or communally.
A re-iteration of general principles about globally applicable human rights.
The dangers of superficial solutions and hasty plans.

We are certainly becoming more aware of the limitations of our planet, because, at the present time, we see a mad rush to claim the resources of the sea and the continental shelves, and, the larger nations are able to grab a larger share, by mutual consent of the more powerful members. There seems to be a certain perverse logic in their arguments, where the legality of a claim to a large part of the resources of the international sea, is based on the fact, that a nation has already a large part of the coast-line under its jurisdiction.

In this frantic scramble to secure the last remaining resources of the earth and to bring them under the absolute power of national sovereignty, we see a distressing hardening of attitudes. Like a group of undisciplined children, the nations of the earth are fighting for the remaining crumbs, but this game does not have the temporary egotistical orientation of the squabbling child, but the deadly serious egocentricity of unquestioned national sovereignty.

It is, indeed, remarkable, that our ethical code encourages us to share with our neighbours within the community or the State, and, that this same ethical code proclaims, as the highest moral stance, the egocentric defense of our national interests or sovereignty against "foreigners". If necessary, these interests will be defended by the sacrifice of life. Apparently, it is supremely moral to share within a community, and to fight other communities to the death, if we feel threatened by them.

In a very real sense, then, our ability to identify with others, still stops at the borders of our community or our nation. Unfortunately, it is very much in line with the nature of our national rulers, including the governing elite of every country or community, to emphasise the unity within their political entity, and, to consider any encroachement on the sovereignty of this unity, and its leadership, as a mortal threat for which the entire community will be called to arms.

The natural drive to dominate and the heady emotions of power, together with the illusions of complete independence that go with it, tend to accentuate the nationalistic fervor of a community and its leadership. What leadership will dismantle its position of power voluntarily, or acknowledge, willingly, that its existence has become superfluous, as it integrates itself into a larger order for the benefit of everyone?

Federal States are tenuously held together by a voluntary union, and, we see, how the tensions become accentuated, when local leadership structures hold-on, at all costs, to their vestiges of power. These struggles for power between a centralised, federal government and the regional leadership structures, are, often, a source of annoyance for the perceptive members of such a nation, because they are aware of the primitive and dangerous drive for power and influence, which plays such an obvious role in the behaviour of their leaders.

We should not underestimate the harmful results of this instinctive drive to hold-on to power, and, to resent any encroachement upon the sphere of our influence. We see, clearly, how our leaders play a major role in the hardening of nationalistic sentiments. We also realise, now, that the main impetus to amalgamation and unification will have to come from the people, because we, ordinary members of society, we have already learned, far better than our leaders, the limitations of the methods of conquest and victory.

We will have to become more confident ourselves, and, we have to educate our leaders in the art of accepting, gracefully, the loss of local power. We, ordinary members, have learned the art of compromise and the submission of power to authority, long before our natural leaders and most ambitious members will be able to do the same. After all, we should not forget, that those, who tend to become leaders in their social environment, are people with a strong tendency to dominate.

Our leaders are strongly endowed with the drive to dominate and they are, often, obsessed with a sense of combativeness and territoriality, otherwise, they would not have become leaders, but we, the people, have to be continuously on our guard. We have to make sure, that we are not led astray into an indefensible attitude of self-righteousness and nationalistic fervor. We have to make sure, that we are not being manipulated into a false sense of national pride, which is nothing more than a legally and morally sanctioned communal egocentricity.

At the present time, we are witnessing a marked hardening of nationalistic emotions and egocentric concerns, brought-on by the realisation, that we are grabbing the final frontiers of the earth`s resources. The inability to expand our national boundaries any further, the weight of world public opinion against invading our neighbours, as well as the wild clamoring of many small nations for recognition and nationalistic rights, will make us all defensive and introvert. We will see a period, where we are less interested in the welfare of others. We will adopt, increasingly, an attitude of "each nation for itself", since all nations have now received, not only, an internationally sanctioned right of existence, but also, a sacred seal of sovereignty and independence.

We will see, that the gap between the richer and poorer nations will grow wider, in spite of a pious dialogue between rich and poor about a new economic world-order. The spread of nuclear technology will make the occurrence of nuclear blackmail and terrorism inevitable, and, a hardening of egocentric attitudes by the clamor of national sovereignty will lead to a lawless scramble for affluence and consumer goods. For a while, we will be less sensitive to the opinions of others, as we witness many savage local conflicts of interests.

How can we break through such an impasse? The only way to avoid a continuation of the current trends and to capitalise on a lingering sense of good-will amongst the peoples of the world, is to outline, boldly, a plan for the development of a just world community of mankind. It seems inescapable to come to the following, fundamental conclusions.

Each human being should have the opportunity to live a healthy life, free from hunger and disease, with equal opportunities to develop, at least, a part of his or her potentials. There is no justification for the possession of inherited wealth and privileges, which comes with the fortunate circumstance of having been born into a wealthy society or a well-to-do family. The earth and all its resources should be available, in equal measure, to all the members of mankind, and, consequently, the ethic of defending national interests has to give way to an ethic of global sharing.

We need a careful, theoretical basis for the ethical guidelines of our behaviour, in order to make the primary requirements of essential equality persuasive and practical objectives for everyone, and, we have to outline the structure and function of a competent world-government capable of helping to implement these ideals.

We have to avoid, at all costs, the paralysing development of corruption and class-divisions, which would destroy, once again, the sense of trust, justice and mutual respect, which we need to sustain a globally just social environment. The elaboration of such utopian ideals, as well as the description of methods that may accomplish an effective and just world-government, will be easily ridiculed and greated with biting sarcasm. Before we refuse to give these ideas a chance, however, let us reflect, soberly, upon the consequences of nuclear conflict or black-mail, as well as the devastation caused by unbridled technological and economic expansion and pollution. We will have to agree, that efforts to reach a new world order are necessary. Whether any one of these efforts will, eventually, be successful, or, which avenue will lead to a measure of success and the implementation of a situation of widespread, or, even, global justice, only time, and study, will tell.

Let us not hesitate, however, to approach this task with all the energy and skill we can find, and, with all the honesty and sincerity necessary to convince ourselves, and others, that this is not merely a gimmick for notoriety.

National boundaries will have to dissolve gradually, and the sphere of mutual recognition and respect will, eventually, have to reach us all, as we are becoming clearly aware of the need for a universal lifestyle of frugal conservation.

These are enormous changes, indeed, in attitude as well as in lifestyle, and the level of mutual trust necessary to give such a development a chance, is astronomical. Such a level of mutual trust has to be carefully nurtured and safeguarded against the disappointments of unworkable and poorly thought-out plans. Let us guard against a superficial and temporary enthousiasm, which can only lead to irrealistic expectations and inevitable disappointments. Let us guard against the easy hope, that such a change will come almost overnight.

In a historical perspective, such a change will already be a fantastically swift and decisive development, if it comes over a period of two or three generations. Let us not forget, that our children are not born with an inherent cynicism about the possibilities for change, neither are they born with the belief, that ever increasing consumption and immediate gratification of sensual pleasures are the pinnacle of human achievement.

The very fact, that none of us will be alive a century hence, is our greatest opportunity to design a global system of education and communication, which will mold the minds and attitudes of the next few generations into a global ethical awareness and a global integration of mankind.

Our computer technology makes an efficient system of education and leadership possible, because it gives us the opportunity to master unimaginable quantities of information. Mass-communications make it possible to disseminate ideas of hope and justice to every member of humanity, and, the information-gathering and -classifying capabilities of the modern computer make it possible, for the first time in history, to create complex bureaucratic channels without the scourge of corruption and incompetence. It gives us the opportunity to experience a measure of openness and access to information for everyone, and, it provides us with a realistic opportunity to be hopeful about the future, and experience a feeling of justice, because these attitudes and reality perceptions will, then, be based on realistic expectations and interpretations.

Computer technology, as well as the start of a global system of information-gathering, may well be the main characteristics our generation will be remembered by. If we give these developments a start, the future generations may forgive us our greedy glut of consumption and self-gratification. In stead, they may fondly think of us as the origin of global integration and a just way of life for everyone. The next essay will outline the theoretical basis for a globally acceptable ethic, and, we will try to sketch a practical approach to accomplish the change-over to an efficient and non-corrupt system of government on a world-wide scale.

.......

Summary

1. The development of behavioural guidelines.
   Religion and philosophy; creation and evolution.
   The potential for a severe emotional reaction against science and technology.
   
   
   
2. The marriage of reason and belief.
   The importance of the collective will.
   Genetic and cultural codes of behaviour.
   
   
   
3. Inter-communal conflicts and mechanisms of cohesion within the large, socially integrated conglomerate.
   A review of the biological heritage of small-scale social cohesion.
   Leadership functions.
   Limitations of the biological foundation for mutual recognition.
   
   
   
4. The development of the larger society.
   Patterns of mutual recognition.
   Ruthless extinction of the near-human species`.
   The development of speech.
   The enlargement of leadership functions.
   Language and the genetic code; similarities in the mechanisms of differentiation.
   The lawlessness of leadership struggles.
   
   
   
5. The transience of large-scale social entities.
   The need for an intellectual grasp over our observations.
   The distance between leadership and ordinary citizens in the large social conglomerates.
   Attempts to close this gap.
   Similarities between Christianity and the large empires of the past.
   The power of a creed; Islam.
   The failure of the mechanisms of natural selection to determine the viability of a social system.
   
   
   
6. The need and demand for collective decisions and well-reasoned actions.
   A review of the present status of social integration.
   The sanctioning of national sovereignty.
   World-wide public opinion.
   Limiting the scope of violent conflict.
   The haphazard existence of national boundaries.
   Legalising national boundaries; by the passage of time and the presence of political stability.
   Rich and poor, large and small nations.
   The need for the equalisation of living standards on a national level.
   The need for equalising mechanisms between nations.
   Human rights.
   The rise of global concerns and the world-wide communication of ideas.
   The influence of religious beliefs on our attitudes.
   The devastation of modern warfare.
   Communication and the possibility for deliberate changes in social relationships.
   
   
   
7. The need for a package of basic human rights.
   The dangers and limitations of elitist attitudes.
   Reasons for, and mechanisms of, the attitude of "cynicism".
   The problem of corruption.
   The fallacy of "salvation" through economic growth.
   A need for changes in attitudes, awarenesses and lifestyles.
   
   
   
8. Limits of natural resources.
   A frantic scramble for the last remaining resources.
   The hardening of nationalistic attitudes.
   Dangerous attitudes of nationalistic leaderships.
   The irresistible temptation of power and sovereignty.
   Pious dialogues.
   No justification for intherited wealth; either personally or communally.
   A re-iteration of general principles about globally applicable human rights.
   The dangers of superficial solutions and hasty plans.

   
   
   
   .......