Translate:
Download this article
or continue reading below
Cooperation allows tasks to be performed at a level of productivity, that is far beyond the capability of a sole, unassisted individual.
Human society is practically defined by cooperation: the provisions for our very survival (and lifestyle) are all produced, and distributed, entirely through our collaborative efforts. Access to all of these provisions – and not just those that the recipient was directly involved in producing – is generally rewarded in exchange for one’s contribution to the cooperative. This level of variety available to just one individual – which could never be matched by the sole efforts of that individual – clearly illustrates the unparalleled benefit of such collaboration.
Cooperation, in any form, requires rules, which instruct participants how to correctly behave in order to coordinate. A single, definitive body of interrelated rules that apply to every member, instructing how one is expected to engage with the collective, is a hallmark (and a necessity) of functional society. These rules usually serve to provide short- to medium-term benefit; which means they can also often be the source of serious long-term detriment, if inconsiderately constructed. It is vital that these rules serve primarily, to maintain perpetual continuity of the society they govern. This means long-term considerations must be treated as a primary concern. While short-term benefit is necessary, it must never be provided at the expense of future prospects (except in extreme circumstances, where immediate survival is at stake).
Maintaining secure access to the resources from which all provisions are produced, is the foundation of societal perpetuity. All such resources originate from natural systems; therefore, to ensure the greatest likelihood of a perpetual supply, societal rules must be configured to best ensure that all activities are performed in a manner that does not threaten the continuity of those systems. While progress is the general ambition of human endeavour, it cannot be genuinely achieved unless natural systems are simultaneously being protected. In general, all structures built upon a flawed foundation are rendered precarious due to that flaw; so, in regard to societal practice, neglect of such a fundamental responsibility as protecting nature (whilst pursuing for example, technological progress) compromises the structural integrity of the entire society, thereby (prematurely) dooming it – and its legacies – to gradual, but quite potentially total, collapse; the very antithesis of progress.
To protect natural systems, society must first determine how these systems actually operate, before any rules can conceivably be deemed applicable. Fortunately, this very pursuit of understanding natural systems is an ancient legacy of humanity; and has (in more modern times) generated a body of applicable knowledge, more than sufficient in breadth and, more importantly, accuracy, to inform the rules required.
Only when accurate, is knowledge of any practical utility; and only if an individual has personally, directly observed the actual phenomenon that their knowledge describes – in reality – can they genuinely verify the accuracy of that knowledge. Yet due to (inevitably) limited opportunities to actually bear witness, much of the knowledge held by an individual is instead, sourced from the assertions of others; and although the information acquired in this manner may well be accurate, without having personally experienced it as such, it is – for many reasons, innocent or otherwise – very possibly inaccurate. Ultimately, every assertion requires a convincing rationale to be considered accurate; and quite often the perceived credibility of the informing source alone, is a sufficient reason to be convinced. In the interests of self-preservation, one’s perception of credibility regarding a source of information should always be (and generally is) cautiously awarded. Of course, no perception is infallible; however, nor are all perceptions equally prone to fallibility. The likelihood of accuracy in any perception, is directly proportionate to the degree of rationality employed in its formation.
Rationality involves exploring every apparent perspective regarding a phenomenon, in order to maximise one’s understanding of it, before making any attempt to definitively explain it (essentially, identifying its tangible causes and/or effects). Accepting assertions from others is a major means to enhance one’s perspective – and an inextricable component of cooperation – so is a vital human practice, despite its inherent risks. In order to minimise that risk, a source of information can be rationally deemed credible only if in compliance with these basic determinants: expertise, reputation, and agenda. Accordingly, one must assess whether the source: possesses sufficient expertise, or experience, regarding a particular subject, to be making a valid (or well-educated) assertion relating to it; has a justified and widespread reputation for, or known history of, generally employing and advocating cautious, humble, objective, rational conduct (such as freely confessing any measure of uncertainty) when forming and sharing opinions, and; has an honest agenda, concerned only with facts and data, with no apparent cause to personally benefit if their assertion is false, but accepted as accurate. Where the source of information is simply an individual with whom one has considerable personal familiarity, one’s perception of their credibility is already well established; however, where a source is unfamiliar, a commonly-accessible means of assessing their credibility is required, especially if their information is of societal concern.
A contented society is one that generally approves of its own trajectory; therefore, its members must be confident that the decisions that determine that trajectory have not been compromised by dubious influences. Only when a provider of information is publicly, legitimately recognised to have received the exhaustive preparatory education, and relevant experience required to best produce an accurate analysis (i.e. sufficient expertise); shown no previous inordinate lapses in professional competence (sound reputation); nor holds active affiliations with any external party that may particularly benefit, if certain practices are pursued (uncompromised agenda), can they be regarded as credible, by any commonly-accessible, rational measure; and are thereby demonstrably qualified to influence the societal trajectory, regarding only any concern directly relevant to their expertise. However, as an apparent compliance with these criteria can be falsified – or a defiance hidden – or simply because humans will inevitably make mistakes, only a consensus of the maximum available number of those with these necessary credentials - who have comprehensively tested (or at least, intently analysed) the methodologies and data by which the assertion was publicly rationalised; and subsequently, agreed upon its objective integrity - can ensure the greatest likelihood that the asserted information is indeed accurate; and therefore, of genuine application to society. This process is known as "peer review"; and is the most reliable means available to humanity, of verifying the accuracy of asserted information. It is the vital, final step in the greater process of discovering - entirely by objective, rational means - factual information about any aspect of the universe; a process known as science.
Science alone, has allowed humankind to understand (among many other things) the mechanisms through which natural systems produce raw resources; it has thereby allowed us, not only to identify and understand how certain human behaviours detrimentally affect the ability of those systems to continue producing resources into the future, but to conceive alternative behaviours and technologies, that instead have a beneficial (or at the very least, relatively benign) effect on natural systems (albeit probably not as beneficial as a complete absence of humankind). Science has not however, managed to persuade society to actually adopt these strategies, to any sufficient degree; this is essentially because the relevant societal rules have conventionally, and invariably, been determined by politicians, who by their very essence are free to measure credibility, and define societal benefit, however they wish. The rationality so valued and protected as a matter of course throughout the entire scientific process is consequently, abandoned just prior to its most vital application. Yet, if politicians were actually obliged to legislate only in accordance with the scientific consensus, and in observance of certain existential realities – such as the requirement to protect natural systems – it would render their vocation essentially ceremonial, and ultimately redundant. General agreement among scientists practising in relevant fields, that all aspects of a societal pursuit comply (or not) with the requisite parameters, can in itself quite effectively constitute an official decree by which to approve (or deny) implementation of that pursuit, providing the society is both structurally and socially prepared to recognise such an unconventional authority. The actual experience of working under such an authority (bypassing the significant matter of the transition phase for the moment) would not, for most people, be a particularly alien or disorienting one: societal contribution has always generally been performed in a manner consistent with established protocol, rather than at the direct whim of an authority figure; indeed, even most directions given by (minor) authority figures merely relay (and enforce) what is fairly universally considered standard practice, regarding methodology and conduct in a given work situation. Provided that definitive, officially sanctioned protocol (essentially a comprehensively-detailed Code of Practice) – which additionally, serves to consolidate the coordination of all industries and their practitioners according to appropriate principles and objectives (essentially a Code of Ethics) – is established, society can function successfully without politicians. Determining the exact principles such protocol ought to reflect however, is practically the same quandary as that which confronts politicians (and voters, where they exist), regarding what policies they should be seen to represent (and which projects to resource); a dispute that explains – if not defines – their enduring societal presence. So many varied opinions and ideologies exist – adopted and discredited, discarded and recycled throughout history – regarding what constitutes appropriate policy, as to render the entire issue apparently subjective. Yet humanity’s responsibilities, and the basic strategies by which to successfully address them, are in reality not only objective, but constant; universally applicable, and crucial.
The greatest priority for any society is to maintain a perpetual supply of natural resources. Although there are many specific organic resources of very prominent and obvious utility, in reality each and every species of organism potentially constitutes, in some form, a natural resource of unique, and irreplaceable – perhaps even vital – benefit to humanity (even if only a fraction of humanity actually recognise that benefit); additionally, all species rely on the survival of certain others for their own, so it is indeed vital for society to actively ensure that every entire species enjoys the greatest prospect for survival (though perhaps excluding those identified as pathogens). Maximising the range, and resident population, of every native habitat, to the minimum extent that genetic diversity can be maintained (i.e. avoiding/reversing fragmentation); avoiding pollution, and exotic species invasion, of habitats; maintaining the geological and climatic conditions (especially regarding water supply) typical of each habitat; and generally ensuring that the diverse ratio of native species comprising an ecosystem maintains a co-dependent balance, is – along with any other factor identified by science – fundamental to the protection of any species. While there is little danger of excessively harvesting a farmed species, the resources and general practices employed in the entire farming process (as with all societal pursuits generally) must still fundamentally comply with the basic principles of species and environment protection; simply because ecosystems, the birthplaces of all species, are of insurmountable value, yet especially vulnerable to inconsiderate human activity. Mineral resources – the material basis of all life – are variable in abundance, but all ultimately finite; so, should be utilised in a manner and form that allows them to readily retain their optimum utility whenever they have exhausted their intended application (similar in principle to organic decomposition/fertilisation processes), in order to avoid their overall (or at least, premature) depletion and - often - subsequent role as a pollutant. If their usable form is unable to be salvaged, its availability should only ever be allocated to the noblest of applications in the first place. Upon acknowledgement of these realities, it becomes conclusively apparent that all natural resources – even though their comparative volumes of production can (and must), in many instances, be greatly manipulated – are ultimately available only at a very limited rate, and for restricted application, if their availability in general is to be sustained. Science must determine, and thereby inform, the rate and manner in which they are to be extracted accordingly; upon extraction, the industries responsible for having performed that task must measure – and inform the societal administration of – their resultant availability; and a predetermined official priority order, reflective of society’s genuine requirements, must fundamentally dictate how the administration then distributes those available resources.
Copyright © 2019 Conscientism.earth - All Rights Reserved.