OMNIVERSE THEORY WEBPAGES
§
TOP OF PAGE [before PART ONE]
§
PART ONE [“Omniverse In The First
Person”]
§
PART TWO [“Extraterrestrial Turning
Point”] (PART
TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE)
§
SOME RECENT WORKS BY DR. TANDY [list of works]
§ SOME ADDITIONAL RELATED WORKS [list
of works]
(PART TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE: THE PRESENT PAGE)
------------------------------
§ PART TWO
(Tandy, 2011)
Tandy, Charles (2011).
“Extraterrestrial Turning Point: From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?” Applied
Ethics Review, Volume 50 (April 2011). (ISSN 10282483). (Pages 27-72). [The
version below was a pre-publication draft:]
ABSTRACT
Extraterrestrial
Turning Point: From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?
Charles Tandy
It
is concluded that the philosophy of Albert Camus provides insight helpful to
the ethical-political development and application of (Charles Tandy’s) Omniverse
Theory. Such insights help expand Omniverse Theory with respect to pragmatic
proposals meant to improve terrestrial society, ban extraterrestrial weapons,
and proactively structure an extraterrestrial world at stable peace fit for
free persons living in self-sufficient green-habitat intentional communities.
Conceptually, it was found that individual rights are ethically required and
that these individual rights in turn ethically require mutual obligations. Such
a perpetually-evolving peaceful-and-free world society (“Meridiankind”) cuts
across generations, generating an ethical imperative to develop anti-death
science-technology with the ability to resurrect all of the dead.
KEYWORDS: Camus (Albert Camus); human
nature; obligations; omniverse theory; peace; political philosophy; Rawls (John
Rawls); resurrection; rights; Singularity (as in Technological Singularity).
Extraterrestrial
Turning Point: From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?
Charles Tandy
§1 Introductory Explanation
The intent of this article is to add more
depth to Omniverse Theory. Omniverse Theory (“Omniverse in the First Person”)
was previously presented by me in this publication; therein (Tandy 2009: 21), I
suggested that we may “soon achieve a higher personhood and become advanced,
extraterrestrial, transmortal beings” – and I attempted to articulate relevant
ethical-political implications. Herein below I look at the philosophic works of
Albert Camus and conclude that they provide further axiological insight helpful
to the ethical-political development and application of Omniverse Theory. With such
Camusian insights in mind, I then in effect re-articulate and expand the
subsection 8B entitled “From terrestrial beings to extraterrestrial beings” (Tandy
2009: 24-28).
The 14 sections of the paper are divided
into three parts: In PART
A,
the thought of Albert Camus is explored in prospect of improving Omniverse
Theory and of developing feasible approaches to world betterment. The
philosophy of Camus, as herein analyzed, is useful to the further development
of Omniverse Theory, but lacks refined philosophic details and is very sparse
with respect to practical applications. PART B, now engaged in Camusian thoughts, attempts to remedy the
lack of philosophic details by focusing on the concepts of individual rights
and intentional communities. PART C, informed by PARTS A and B, claims to offer feasible approaches to
world betterment. Indeed, PART C argues that humanity is at an unprecedented turning
point in history, but whether we will transform ourselves from “Man-unkind”
into “Meridian-kind” is a question.
Specifically, the 14 sections of the
present paper are as follows:
§1 Introductory Explanation
PART A:
CAMUSIAN THOUGHTS
§2 Albert Camus as Philosopher
§3 Camus and Absurdity: The Myth of Sisyphus
§4 Camus and Anti-Absurdity: The Rebel
§5 Camus as the First Man
PART
B: PROJECT-ORIENTATED RE-FORMULATION
§6 Individual Rights and the Right to
Intentional Communities
PART C:
THE UP-TO PROJECT
§7 From Unintentional Communities to
Intentional Communities
§8 The UP-TO Project and Human Nature
§9 Note on Terminology – “Peoples” and
“Well-ordered Peoples”
§10 The “UP”:
§11 The “TO”: Treaty Organization
Acting for a Better Cosmos
§12 Extraterrestrial Turning Point
§13 From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?
§14 Closing Remarks
PART A: CAMUSIAN
THOUGHTS
§2 Albert Camus as Philosopher
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
by Douglas Adams, Deep Thought (a supercomputer) spends some time in deep
thought about the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and
Everything. Indeed, after millions of years, Deep Thought finally provides the
answer. The “answer” is 42. (This is reminiscent of Stephen Hawking’s “answer”:
M-theory.)
Albert Camus (1913-1960) claims not to
have definitive answers to the ultimate questions of life but instead wants to
engage in genuine dialogue with the reader. (I use the present tense because
his time, “an age of absurdity”, remains our time.) In his view, one may choose
to attempt to learn and advance – instead of dangerously leaping to premature
certainty. (In an age of absurdity, leaping to premature certainty or engaging
in other irrational behavior is a great temptation.) He says that for him the
reasonable approach is to admit uncertainty while simultaneously attempting to
live his life with integrity (authenticity). Camus admits uncertainty about
ultimate questions – but also notes that at a given point in time some things
will seem to him more reasonable or less reasonable than other things. Camus
argues for, or (so to speak) paints pictures of, what seems reasonable to him.
The reader may (so to speak) look at the pictures and agree or disagree.
Although
Camus saw himself primarily as a creative artist in the form of writer, rather
than professional philosopher, I will in this paper focus primarily on what are
generally recognized as his two major philosophical works: The Myth of Sisyphus and The
Rebel. According to Camus, these two works may be identified with the
two stages of his intellectual development. Unfortunately, he died (“absurdly”)
at the age of 46 (after only two years as a young Nobel Laureate), so we have
no stage three in his development. At the age of 17, however, he had already
encountered one of his numerous bouts of tuberculosis; at the time there was
little treatment available and he thought he was then going to die.
§3 Camus and Absurdity: The Myth of Sisyphus
(“Is my life worth living?”)
So how do we make the transition from an
absurd here and an uncertain now – to a vital world of celebration and multiple
flourishing? Perhaps nourishing a certain kind of uncertainty and of
celebration may help transform an absurd uncertain universe into a flourishing
uncertain multiverse or omniverse. Voltaire wrote to
In
our history of learning to advance toward dialogue and friendship, we should
know by now that one's fundamental beliefs should be held tentatively rather
that absolutely. Socrates is said to have been the world's wisest person
because he knew that he did not know with certainty, whereas everyone else was
certain. Yet Socrates was committed to dialogue and friendship even at the risk
of his very life.
Let us now proceed to dialogue with our
friend Albert Camus. We will begin at the beginning by asking with Camus, in
his The
Myth of Sisyphus, “Is my life worth living?” (2005: 1-2) If one
convincingly feels that neither Reason nor Religion nor Science are traditions that provide a sure path out of
the absurd wilderness, then must one conclude that one’s life has no meaning
and is not worth living?
In a 1955 Preface to The Myth of Sisyphus,
Camus tells us that he wrote it in 1940 (during World War Two) and that he has
“progressed beyond several of the positions which are set down here;” [perhaps
referring to The Rebel?]. He continues: “but I have remained faithful, it
seems to me, to the exigency [absurdity?] which prompted them.” (Camus 1955: vi)
Part
One Of Five Parts Is Entitled: An Absurd Reasoning
I gather that Camus is suggesting that
Reason (as in philosophy), Religion (as in Christianity), and Science (as in
physics or psychology) are but games compared to the more serious question:
“Judging whether life is or not worth living.” (2005: 1) Accordingly, judging
“whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or
twelve categories – comes afterwards.” (2005: 2)
The man who committed suicide had lost
his daughter years earlier and had never gotten over it. Her loss had
“‘undermined’ him. A more exact word cannot be imagined. Beginning to think is
beginning to be undermined.” (2005: 3) On the other hand, the non-suicides “continue
making gestures commanded by existence for many reasons, the first of which is
habit.” (2005: 4) (Camus notes that humans learn to breathe before
they learn to think.)
Can one live without the eternal or
certain values sponsored by Tradition/Authority (Reason; Religion; Science)?
Contrary to what authority/tradition (the philosopher or theologian or
scientist) may say, an autonomous Camus is able to begin with absurdity without
ending there. Camus says that choosing for or against suicide forgets the third
option: One can choose to continue questioning instead of ending it with a
premature YES or NO. Instead of taking an “either-or” or “all or nothing”
approach, why not choose the middle ground of autonomy? Camus fights
passionately against the absurdity of death from the (“
Thus perpetual questioning leads one
[Camus] to say NO to mortality. Many of those who say NO to suicide, however,
act as if they said YES. Instead of choosing the anti-death moderation of
autonomy, they choose the supposed immortality or certainty of a
Tradition/Authority (Reason or Religion or Science as an ideology or way of
life). They are the living dead.
So there are the dead and there are the
living dead. Camus takes the third way, that of individual autonomy. One does
not have to know that The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything
is “63” or “42” (here the living dead have their lively, sometimes deadly,
disagreements) in order to value autonomous living. (As for the literal dead,
it seems that those of the dead who took an autonomous or anti-death stance
were not entirely successful in that they are dead.[1]) The living dead includes those who have not
given much thought to the life-death question, including those who consciously
or unconsciously avoid the topic. The living dead also includes those who have
made a leap of faith to some eternal or absolutist ideology (religious or
secular).
If I may speak in a technical rather than
everyday way, we can say that Camus is a moderate in that he is both anti-death
and anti-immortality. Unless one joins the living dead and gives up one’s
autonomy, it would seem to take an infinite amount of time to achieve
immortality. Instead of fantasizing, one can attempt (in one’s finite
presentness in an age of absurdity) to take steps against both literal death
and living death. Here is the book’s epigram:
O my soul, do not aspire
to immortal life, but exhaust the limits of the possible.
-- PINDAR, Pythian iii
Anti-death autonomy is the middle way
between the extremes of literal suicide and the immortal life supposed by the
living dead. Recovering the certainty of knowledge is a fantasy of the living
dead. Camus is unwilling to give up his anti-death autonomy in favor of such dangerous
nostalgia.
I can feel a heart within me and I can
touch a world: “There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction.” (2005:
17) “In psychology as in
logic, there are truths but no truth.” (2005: 18) There are three
characters in the mortal drama: the irrationality of the world; the human
heart’s desire for meaning; and the encounter between the two (absurdity).
First comes the feeling of absurdity or meaninglessness, then comes the notion
or concept. The perpetual struggle has meaning (!) “only in so far as it [the
absurd] is not agreed to.” (2005: 30)
So what are the consequences of the
absurd? Some pretend to forget or ignore it. Some leap to premature suicide.
Others leap to unevidenced certainty in Tradition/Authority (one or another
ideology of Reason or Religion or Science). Thus there are many ways to escape
from the Sisyphusian struggle. Some, however, freely choose autonomy
(integrity; authenticity) and continue to continue to continue the struggle
against death.
But the Camusian rejection of Tradition
or Authority or Ideology is a partial one. Sisyphus finds it natural to use
experience or tools associated with reason or religion or science to the extent
they are helpful in his unending battle against literal death and living death.
For example, one can use reason in a piecemeal way to counter both Ideology and
Mortality. Camusian moderation maneuvers between the extreme paths of triumphal
reason and humiliated reason.
“The laws of nature may be operative up to
a certain limit [prior to individual autonomy], beyond which they turn against
themselves to give birth to the absurd [individual autonomy]. Or else, they may
justify themselves on the level of description without for that reason being true
on the level of explanation.” (2005: 35) But whatever the case may be, Sisyphus will
not give up his autonomous anti-death struggle against the universe.
Sisyphus chooses integrity rather
subterfuge. Without appealing to eternal or absolute values, he removes Reason
and Religion and Science from their pedestals but does not commit them to
annihilation. This is the middle way between the extremes of hubris and
humiliation. Autonomous rebellion against death and absurdity is a meaningful
and moderate way to perpetually search for meaning.
“By the mere activity of consciousness I
transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death.” (2005:
62) Reasoning about the
absurd leads Camus to infer three natural consequences for Sisyphus:
1. My Life (my rebellion): “It is
essential to die unreconciled and not of one’s own free will.” (2005:
53)
2. My
3. My Pursuit of Happiness (my passion): diversity
of experience, “But the point is to live.” (2005: 63)
Part
Two Of Five Parts Is Entitled: The Absurd Man
Camus then
attempts to present a few cameos of persons (the seducer-lover; the actor; the
adventurer-conqueror) as each might live their very own individual lives of
my-rebellion, my-freedom, and my-passion. The Absurd Man does not claim to know
about eternal or absolute values; indeed, he has no need of rules to justify
his behavior. The Absurd Man finds it difficult to believe that anyone deserves
a death sentence, whether from the universe or from other men. Such Absurd
Persons live their lives rather than obey someone else’s rules.
Part
Three Of Five Parts Is Entitled: Absurd Creation
According to Camus, the creator-artist is
“the most absurd character.” (2005: 89) Camus may be referring to an artist-writer
such as himself. If the world is clear and certain, we get description rather
than (absurd) art. Artists prefer images over arguments. Camus wants to create
without appeal to eternal or absolute values and thus “liberate my [literary]
universe of its phantoms and to people it solely with flesh and blood truths
whose presence I cannot deny.” (2005: 99) Even the great writers such as Dostoievsky and
Kafka do not altogether succeed in this respect. One of the truly absurd works,
Camus says, is Melville’s Moby Dick.
Part Four Of Five Parts Is Entitled: The Myth Of
Sisyphus
Sisyphus was a wise and clever mortal accused
of lacking proper respect for the gods. Indeed, he succeeded in putting Death
in chains. However the gods then unchained Death and condemned Sisyphus. His
punishment was severe: Forever rolling a stone up a mountain only to have the
boulder fall back again and again and again. His situation is tragic because he
is without hope, forever doomed to failure. YET: “If the descent is thus
sometimes performed in sorrow, it can also take place in joy. The word is not
too much.” (2005: 117) “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough
to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” (2005: 119)
Part
Five Of Five Parts Is An Appendix Entitled:
Hope
And The Absurd In The Work Of Franz Kafka
Kafka writes
in such a way that it forces the reader to re-read and re-interpret. We find
that Samsa has “a ‘slight annoyance’” – “his boss will be angry at his
absence.” (2005: 125) Samsa otherwise seems unconcerned – that his body
has metamorphosed into that of a huge insect!
Camus opines that truth is contrary to
conventional morality. Sometimes Kafka seems to almost realize that it is fatal
to give God what does not belong to him. But then Kafka will sneak in hope,
unaware that hope “is not his business. His business is to turn away from
subterfuge.” (2005: 134)
§4 Camus and Anti-Absurdity: The Rebel
(“How do I live a meaningful life?”)
Camus, in his The Myth of Sisyphus, had
asked “Is my life worth living?” We have seen that his conclusion was
affirmative (or at least it was a passionate NO to NO). Now we will ask with
Camus, in his The Rebel, “How do I live a meaningful life?” Here we will find
some evolution in his thought.
Indeed, if you have read only The
Myth of Sisyphus, and no other work by Camus, you may declare my
interpretation above severely distorted. You may be correct, for I read The
Rebel before reading The Myth of Sisyphus. I have read
the two volumes as if they were one. Moreover, in my anachronistic fusion of
the two, I am not attempting to
articulate a definitive Camus interpretation of Camus. That is why PART A’s
title says (not “The Thoughts Of
Camus”, but) “Camusian Thoughts” – thoughts inspired “about the Ultimate Question of Life, the
Universe, and Everything”
upon reading these two works by Camus. With this caveat in mind, I now present
to you my Camusian Thoughts about The Rebel.
In the introduction, Camus says that in
our peculiar time, good-will (“innocence”) is suspect. It seems these days we
have to explain why we want to do good. Camus wants to do good simply because
it is the good thing to do. Yet in our complex world, is it even possible to do
good without directly or indirectly killing or harming someone? In the face of
the absurd, Camus chose to live. But given this, and given our age of
ideologies (Reason; Religion; Science), is it possible to live without killing
others? Simply by living in an age of ideologies, do we not participate in the
literal death or living death of others?
Yet is it not the case that: “From the moment
that life is recognized as good, it becomes good for all men”? (1991: 6)
Not only should one not kill oneself, but likewise one should not kill
others. My autonomous or natural rights imply your rights too. My rights and
your rights “must be accepted or rejected together.” (1991: 6)
Choosing to live is a value judgment,
a standard or limit with implications for one’s relation to others. When I
rebel against absurdity, my action is on behalf of all. My individualistic act
is an act of solidarity or unity.
Part One Of Five Parts Is Entitled: The Rebel
A rebel is one “who says no, but … who
[also] says yes. … there are limits.” (1991: 13) By rebelling, we are saying that there are
limits or standards or values or rights which we all should respect. Thus there
is a sense in which we are all naturally equal and “a human nature does exist.”
(1991: 16) Humans have metaphysical solidarity – they
are a natural community: My rebellion “is for the sake of everyone in the
world.” (1991: 16)
The
spirit of rebellion tends not to be expressed in societies of either extreme
inequality or extreme equality. But over time we humans experience absurdity,
and humanity’s self-awareness grows. Yet we are tempted to forget either the
basis of rebellion or that there are limits. We tend to ideologically leap into
a living death – either groveling before God or intoxicating on power.
I, Camus, rebel against both servitude
and tyranny. I, Camus, refuse to give in to either metaphysical other-worldliness
or to Caesaristic historicism. In order to exist, we humans must rebel: “Man’s
solidarity is founded upon rebellion, and rebellion, in its turn, can only find
its justification in this solidarity.” (1991: 22)
Thus we have gone beyond individualistic
absurdity. Descartes had said: “I think – therefore I am.” But in
rebellious solidarity, “suffering is [now] seen as a collective experience. … I
rebel – therefore we exist.” (1991: 22)
Part Two Of Five Parts Is Entitled: Metaphysical
Rebellion
The Man refuses to give in to
metaphysical other-worldliness. The Man refuses to ideologically leap into a
living death, groveling before God. To the “I rebel, therefore we exist,” the
Man adds: “And we are alone.” (1991: 104)
Part Three Of Five Parts Is Entitled: Historical
Rebellion
The Man refuses to give in to Caesaristic
historicism. The Man refuses to ideologically leap into a living death,
intoxicating on tyrannical power. To the “I rebel, therefore we exist,” and the
“We are alone,” the Man adds: “Live and let live.” “Instead of killing
and dying in order to produce the being that we are not, we have to live and
let live in order to create what we are.” (1991:
252) Thus the key
importance of creativity or art:
Part Four Of Five Parts Is Entitled: Rebellion And
Art
Creation or art is pure rebellion – it
demands unity while partially rejecting the world. The world is used by the
artist in order to attempt to create a better world that meaningfully unites
everyone and everything. The Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution,
Russian nihilism, and German ideology are all examples of artistic banishment.
Should we not choose morality or usefulness or progress (take your pick) over
beauty?
The artist rebels against these stark,
narrow worlds – by constructing alternatives to such prisons. The artist
believes in life and living, not death and dying. “Rebellion … is a fabricator
of universes.” (1991: 255) The artist finds both absurdity and beauty in the
world. This suggests construction of a less absurd, more beautiful universe.
Thus the artist becomes part of the process of evolution.
The modern novel “competes with creation
and, provisionally, conquers death.” (1991: 264)
Proust’s Time Regained “appears to be one of the most
ambitious and most significant of man’s enterprises against his mortal
condition. … this art consists in choosing the creature in preference to his
creator.” (1991: 267)
But even more, it supports “the beauty of the world and its inhabitants against
the powers of death and oblivion. It is in this way that his rebellion is
creative.” (1991: 268)
Real creation attempts neither to escape
from reality nor to accept it as it is. The moderation and passion of the
Meridian Rebel or true artist “simply adds something that transfigures
reality.” (1991: 269)
Thus both “formal’ art and “realist” art must be seen as extremes. Much
“modern” art unwisely attempts to replace one totalitarian “unity” with
another. The
Real literary creation is not to be
identified with commentary or criticism. Terror and tyranny contradict
creativity and art. Perhaps a renaissance of creativity and civilization is
possible. Often movements proclaiming a new world are actually the extreme
opposite or climaxing contradiction of the old one. Today this extreme, in one
form or another, is bent on industrial production. But: “The society based on
production is only productive, not creative.” (1991: 273)
Every creative act of love denies the
world of master-slave. Yet today it seems our leaders have no time for love.
“But the fact that creation is necessary does not perforce imply that it is
possible.” (1991: 274) Of every ten potential artists, maybe one or
none will become artists if all that counts is industrial competition in a
hellish world.
Even if history has an end, it is not our
task to end it. Those who choose to ignore nature or the sea or the stars or
beauty are constructing a world devoid of freedom and dignity. We, the Meridian
rebels, must uphold beauty and creativity if we are to live in a beautiful and
creative world with freedom and dignity.
Part Five Of Five Parts Is Entitled:
Thought At The
Forgetting its
“Rebellion is in no way the demand for
total freedom. On the contrary, … the rebel wants it to be recognized that
freedom has its limits everywhere that a human being is to be found … The more
aware rebellion is of demanding a just limit, the more inflexible it becomes. …
The freedom he claims, he claims for all; the freedom he refuses, he forbids
everyone to enjoy. He is not only the slave against the master, but also man
against the world of master and slave.” (1991:
284) Indeed, “rebellion, in principle, is a
protest against death.” (1991: 285)
But in the real, absurd world in which we
live, the rebel is confronted with hard choices. Violence versus non-violence.
Justice versus freedom. And: Not to choose is itself a choice or risk. “In so
far as it is a risk it cannot be used to justify any excess or any ruthless and
absolutist position.” (1991: 289)
Rebellion with limits changes
everything: We all have a common nature and individual rights. But technology,
without proper guidance from the rebel, does not know this. Science has
forgotten that it originated in rebellion with limits. Science and technology
may yet return from deadly extremes to their origins and serve “individual
rebellion. This terrible necessity [against terrorism, destruction, and
enslavement] will mark the decisive turning-point” in history.
(1991: 295)
The value that gives historical
development meaning is not unknown: I rebel – therefore, we are. Thus: “Virtue
cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principle of evil. Nor
can it identify itself completely with reality without denying itself.” (1991:
296) We have here a new
form of virtue and a new kind of individualism. “I have need of others who have
need of me and of each other. … the individual, without this discipline, is
only a stranger … I alone, in one sense, support the common dignity that I
cannot allow either myself or others to debase. This individualism is in no
sense pleasure; it is perpetual struggle, and, sometimes, unparalleled joy when
it reaches the heights of proud compassion.” (1991: 297)
The moderation of the rebel, Meridian
Man, is a perpetual tension and never-ending task. Contradictions ensue if we
try to exist either above or below the meridian. History and the future must be
viewed as opportunities, not as objects of worship. Passionate rebellion with
limits is Meridian Man’s approach to such opportunities. “Even by his greatest
effort man can only propose to diminish arithmetically the sufferings of the
world. But … no matter how limited they are, they will not cease to be an
outrage. … confronted with death, man from the very depths of his soul cries
out for justice.” (1991: 303) This applies not only to literal death, but also to
living death: “Thus Catholic prisoners, in the prison cells of
Now to the final paragraph of The
Rebel (1991: 306):
Meridian Man refuses the temptation of Caesaristic intoxication “in order to
share in the struggles and destiny of all men,” birthing a strange joy; happily
“we shall remake the soul of our time … which will exclude nothing.” Following
the intoxicating “pride of a contemptible period”: “All may indeed live again,
… but on condition that it is understood that they correct one another, and
that a limit, under the sun, shall curb them all. … it is time to forsake our
age and its adolescent furies.” At “this moment … at last … [the first] man is
born.”
§5 Camus as the First Man
Camus, age
46, died absurdly as a passenger in an automobile accident in 1960. With him
was his uncompleted manuscript, The First
PART B: PROJECT-ORIENTATED RE-FORMULATION
§6 Individual Rights and the Right to
Intentional Communities
When Camus rebels against absurdity, his
action is on behalf of all. His individualistic act is an act of solidarity or
unity. His autonomous rights imply your individual rights too. (Otherwise, an
assertion of rights is an assertion about power, not about rights.)
Buford (1984: 187) points out that: “For
Lou to have a moral right to do x,
someone else is morally obligated to act or refrain from acting regarding x if Lou wants that person to do so.” On
the one hand, “where there is an obligation there is not necessarily a right.”
On the other hand: “Wherever there is a right to something there is a
corresponding duty or obligation to [attempt to] honor that right.”
Thus the interactive perspective of individual
moral rights, properly understood, views persons as social beings instead of as
egoistical atoms. Buford (1984: 189-190) elaborates:
·
“First,
the practice of rights presupposes that all participants accept and follow
rules that are social in character.”
·
“Second,
the practice of rights enmeshes one in a social structure. ... Such autonomy,
when it is present, always exists within some social structure.”
·
“Third,
the practice of rights necessarily involves acceptance of authority and
subordination to that authority. ... [We are] obligated to do the best that we
know [as in the rule: “one should not kill other people”] and submit to its
authority.”
·
The
“practice of rights occurs only within a society [of mutual obligations].”
·
“If
I have the right to speak freely in a town meeting, you are obligated to allow
me that freedom. But you would not want to congratulate yourself on your
generosity in allowing me to speak. ... [Rights] are accorded you by right, not
by my generosity.”
·
Accordingly:
“Respect for the rights of others does not involve loyalty or friendship.” Yet:
“In love and friendship we often [so to speak] give up rights and subordinate
and sacrifice ourselves. We do such things willingly.”
Based on Camus and on Buford, we may now
articulate some of our findings with respect to individual (moral) rights and intentional
(voluntary) communities: Authentically choosing one’s individual rights to life and liberty carries analogous
implications for one’s relation to
others. The individual rights we identify with life and living mean we have mutual-obligations
not to kill each other – our societal environment ought to be one of stable peace devoid of violence, killing, and
war. The individual rights we identify with living and liberty mean we have mutual-obligations
to insure freedom of thought, of expression,
of association, and to pursue happiness. Thus, our mutual-obligation society of
individual rights includes the right to live in peaceful and free communities.
PART C: THE UP-TO
PROJECT
§7 From Unintentional Communities to
Intentional Communities
It seems that there are two ways which one
may (so to speak) give up one’s individual rights and do so reasonably: (1) One
way may be seen as related to the concept of “Intentional Communities” (in
section 11 below we will talk of a “Society of Intentional Communities”). That is to say, with respect to certain group
relationships, one may freely choose to give up rights and subordinate and
sacrifice oneself; in this case one may later choose to (so to speak) take back
or restore one’s rights again. (2) A second way may be seen as related to the
concept of “Society” (in section 11 below we will talk of a “Society of Intentional Communities”).
That is to say, a second way to reasonably (so to speak) give up an individual
right is by seeing that one was mistaken in viewing it as a right; at first one
may think that one has the right to egotistically steal and kill as one
chooses, only to later apprehend (say, per Camus) that the “might makes right”
view is mistaken. (Rather, a Camusian or a
Thus it seems that individual (moral) rights
and intentional (voluntary) communities are mutually implicated and supportive
in our quest for a good society (Buford 1984: 191). By forming intentional
communities, “we distinguish ourselves from the rest of society in order to
achieve those objectives we personally believe best. We set about to realize
our dreams. Within the groups we form by right we can experience the love,
warmth, sympathy, and fellow feeling we want.” “What kind of social relations
best support the living of the good life? They are those in which the rights of
individuals are protected. Since rights can exist only in the context of a
society, that society must allow for the formation of families and groups [intentional
communities] to promote the realization of objectives the individuals believe
best.”
If we have individual rights to a
peaceful and free society of intentional communities, then we have a mutual-obligation
to create and sustain such a world society. Heretofore our history has not
given us a peaceful and free world of intentional communities. As Camus and
history have shown, attempting to produce desirable ends by undesirable means
is not the way to learn about rights and obligations or to create and sustain a
world peaceful and free. Below I claim that we can use desirable means to
achieve desirable ends. As I will demonstrate, the means are dependent on
context. We will want, while staying afloat, to devolve our dangerous dinghies and
build better boats, sound ships that sail peaceful and free.
§8 The UP-TO Project and Human Nature
For many centuries it was often said that
due to nature or human nature, stable world peace was not possible and perhaps
not desirable. For many centuries it was often said that due to nature or human
nature, human heavier-than-air flight was not possible and perhaps not
desirable. For many centuries it was often said that due to nature or human
nature, the banning of human slavery was not possible and perhaps not
desirable.
According to the third-century-BCE
Chinese prince and scholar, Han Fei Tzu: “King Yen practiced benevolence and
righteousness and the state of Hsü was wiped out; Tsu-kung employed eloquence
and wisdom and Lu lost territory. So it is obvious that benevolence and
righteousness, eloquence and wisdom, are not the means by which to maintain the
state.” (Watson 1964: 100).
The so-called “Parable of the Tribes” or
“Prisoner’s Dilemma” helps explain why things sometimes go from bad to
worse. Understanding the Parable or
Dilemma may help us, individually and collectively, engender a future that goes
from good to better instead of from bad to worse. Our apparent inability – in
many past centuries – to ban human slavery, to engage in heavier-than-air
flight, or to achieve stable world peace cannot
be reduced to nature or human nature.
Schmookler (1984: 21) explains the error of reducing all human problems to
nature or human nature; Schmookler explains the Parable of the Tribes this way:
“In an anarchic situation … no one can choose that the struggle for power shall
cease. … no one is free to choose peace,
but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power. [And humans, unlike
nonhuman animals, have the ability to modify their anarchic situation.]”
Evans (1995: 719)
also explains the error of reducing
all human problems to nature or human nature; Evans explains the Prisoner’s
Dilemma this way: “The prisoner’s dilemma describes a possible situation in
which prisoners are offered various deals and prospects of punishment. The
options and outcomes are so constructed that it is rational for each person,
when deciding in isolation, to pursue a course which each finds [in terms of
actual results] to be against his interest and therefore [in terms of actual
results] irrational. … Such a scenario postulates a lack of enforced
cooperation; and to avoid the undesirable outcome, the actors in the drama need
to be forced into cooperation by a system of [enforced] rules.”
§9 Note on
Terminology – “Peoples” and “Well-ordered Peoples”
My “UP-TO” proposal is meant to be a general outline or approach to
achieve world peace, freedom, and prosperity. If “the devil is in the details,”
I leave such details to those more qualified than I. Nevertheless I have to use
words even to suggest the general proposal such as it is. These words may be
easily misunderstood. Thus herewith below a preliminary note on terminology. (I
suggest consulting The Law of Peoples by John Rawls if one wishes to attempt to
improve on the terminology – i.e., the meaning of “peoples” and “well-ordered
peoples”.)
I have chosen to use the word
“peoples.” As a first approximation: By “peoples” I mean to include
so-called “states” (e.g., members of the United Nations) and so-called
“quasi-states” (e.g.,
I have chosen to use the term
“well-ordered peoples.” As a first approximation: By “well-ordered peoples”
I mean to include “democratic peoples” and “decent peoples” (somewhat along the
lines suggested by John Rawls in his The Law of Peoples, but so as to be
consistent with the previous paragraph). Here again I leave it to those
actually negotiating the agreement or treaty to decide, for example, whether
“decent peoples” should be included or whether only “democratic peoples” should
be counted as “well-ordered.” The UP
part of the UP-TO proposal will be identified primarily with the term
“well-ordered peoples” (as distinguished from the broader term
“peoples”). The TO part of the UP-TO proposal will be identified primarily with the
term “peoples” (as distinguished from the narrower term “well-ordered
peoples”).
Below, I do NOT say that the European Union MUST take the lead to
achieve world peace, freedom, and prosperity. Again, I am not the most
qualified person to decide this pragmatic question (of leadership in the
present context). Nevertheless on this issue I wish now to express my opinion.
My opinion is that the European
Union should take the lead in
achieving world peace, freedom, and prosperity. A detailed defense of this tentative
opinion (“that the European Union should take the lead”) is beyond the purview
of the present paper. However below I outline an “UP-TO” approach which I
believe is doable at the level of international politics. For it to prove
successful, it will require assistance from the
§10 The “UP”:
Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace,
published in 1795, is a remarkable piece of social science foresight.[3] In 1795, very few republics existed and
no liberal democracies existed (e.g. consider civil rights issues related to
slavery and women). Kant argued for republicanism and for an expanding concert
of peaceful republics. He believed this approach (as distinguished from the
universal membership approach) would eventually lead (in the 21st
century?) to a global stable peace.
The UP proposal
is a proposal for a terrestrial Union
of Peoples Well-ordered. On today’s
Earth, the People of China and the People of Russia are NOT well-ordered – but
the EU Peoples and the North America Peoples, among many others, do have the actual substance of cultural norms
and working mechanisms (rather than the mere form of words or documents or
elections) that considerably support the rights of persons and that
considerably tend to prevent war among such like-minded well-ordered peoples.
Reminiscent of Kant, this is sometimes referred to by today’s political
scientists as the world’s “zone of peace.”
Let me point
out that although the UP and the TO are separate entities with separate
terrestrial-extraterrestrial functions, they are nevertheless expected, with
help from the EU and others, to be birthed on the same date and to be
perpetually on speaking terms with each other. Signatories of peoples to the
(terrestrial) UP are members of the UP Voting
Council; signatories of peoples to the (extraterrestrial) TO are members of the
UP Advisory Council. Likewise,
signatories of peoples to the (extraterrestrial) TO are members of the TO Voting Council; signatories of peoples
to the (terrestrial) UP are members of the TO Advisory Council.
The UP (Union of Well-ordered Peoples) idea is inspired in part by
the Daalder and Lindsay proposal for a CD (Concert
of Democracies). (The article by Ivo
Daalder and James Lindsay is entitled “Democracies of the World, Unite”.)[4]
While the UP and the CD concepts are not altogether identical,
either realization may be expected to provide a number of benefits to world
betterment, including: (1) Strengthening and expanding the positive
relationship zone of peace and peaceful activities among UP or CD societies;
and, (2) Weakening the negative temptations of UP or CD societies, such as (A)
crusading imperialism; (B) imprudent appeasement; and, (C) moralistic
isolationism.
§11 The “TO”: Treaty Organization
Acting for a Better Cosmos
The TO proposal
is a proposal for an extraterrestrial Treaty
Organization Acting for a Better
Cosmos. Before I explain the TO proposal in more detail, let me again point out
that although the UP and the TO are separate entities with separate
terrestrial-extraterrestrial functions, they are nevertheless expected, with
help from the EU and others, to be birthed on the same date and to be
perpetually on speaking terms with each other. Signatories of peoples to the
(terrestrial) UP are members of the UP Voting
Council; signatories of peoples to the (extraterrestrial) TO are members of the
UP Advisory Council. Likewise,
signatories of peoples to the (extraterrestrial) TO are members of the TO Voting Council; signatories of peoples
to the (terrestrial) UP are members of the TO Advisory Council. Note that
the People of China and the People of Russia may indeed be founding
(voting) members of TO but not of UP; on the one hand, they are
peoples – on the other hand, they are not yet well-ordered. (At some point in time in the 21st
century, perhaps
Previously above I have explained the
“Union of Peoples Well-ordered” (UP) idea. Now I present the TO (“Treaty
Organization Acting for a Better Cosmos”) part of the UP-TO proposal.[5]
I believe that both the UP and TO ideas are desirable and
feasible for today’s world, even more so if implemented together (UP-TO). These
two Concerts, acting more or less in concert, may have historically unusual
(“doubly-synergistic”) abilities to transmute our outmoded world into a
“transcivilization” of peaceful prosperous societies.
We may not know the actual or secret
(classified) policies of the
The TO would serve two functions: (1) as
gateway between planet earth and peaceful space – this includes enforceably banning weapons and
weapons-making from extraterrestrial space; and, (2) as midwife to an evolving
Extraterrestrial Society
As I proceed to discuss these two
functions, I want to attempt to offer a realistic
vision of future extraterrestrial technology. This should help us better understand
how to think about TO (and UP-TO). But
realistic visions sometimes change. Accordingly, we will want TO to be flexible
enough to change in case our “realistic vision” changes!
It has been said that if your prediction
of far-future technological capacities does not sound like science fiction, then your prediction is wrong. Accordingly,
please momentarily assume that the following vision (which may sound like
science fiction) is indeed realistic. You can then later critically examine the
notes and bibliography to independently decide for yourself.
The astounding capacity of future
technology can be glimpsed at by taking a non-controversial
look at the future of extraterrestrial O’Neill Habitats and of molecular
Drexler Technology (and their eventual melding together).[6], [7] I say non-controversial because the controversy in each case is over
when, not if. Thus for present purposes we can overcome this dispute by simply
talking non-controversially about these kinds of capacities in the far future
(bypassing timeline predictions of near or far). Abundant extraterrestrial
resources will be used to construct greener-than-earth, self-sufficient,
self-replicating O’Neill Habitats in orbit around planets and suns.
Accordingly, barring catastrophe, it seems highly likely that in the long run
almost all of our multitudinous offspring will be permanently living and
working somewhere in the universe other than on planet Earth. Indeed, molecular Drexler Technology is not
required for construction and development of extraterrestrial O’Neill Habitats
(“SEG communities”) – it just makes the task easier.
Historically one of the reasons that
Terrestrial civilizations of old engaged in wars against each other was to gain
more territory, and the power and glory that came with empire. (Human-caused
global warming, human-made weapons of mass death and destruction, and a
human-crowded global village did not yet exist.) As life grew denser on planet
earth, the environment on which each organism depended increasingly consisted
of other living things. But the development of advanced O’Neill Habitats (Sustainable Extraterrestrial Greener-than-earth
communities, or SEGs) in orbit around a planet or a sun will mean multiple,
self-reproducing biospheres; "unlimited free land” (freely available
territory); and the realistic possibility of intentional (i.e., voluntary) communities for all persons. Instead
of remaining in the community or culture of one's birth, one will be
realistically free to experiment living in one kind of community or another.
New kinds of cultures and communities will be enabled by the new
extraterrestrial technology.
According to
Carter and Dale (1974: 12): “Most of the progressive and dynamic civilizations
of mankind started on new land – on land that had not been the center of a
former civilization.” The following metaphorical insights have been widely
quoted by SEG experts: "The Earth was our cradle, but we will not live in
the cradle forever." "Space habitats [SEGs] are the children of
Mother Earth." According to Carl Sagan, our long-term survival is a matter
of “spaceflight or extinction”; all civilizations become either space-faring or
extinct. According to the “mass extinction” article in The Columbia Encyclopedia
(6th ed.): “The extinctions, however, did
not conform to the usual
evolutionary rules regarding
who survives; the
only factor that
appears to have
improved a family of
organisms’ chance of
survival was widespread
geographic colonization.”[8]
Gateway
Between Planet Earth And Peaceful Space
The TO would serve as gateway between
planet earth and peaceful space – this includes enforceably banning weapons and weapons-making from
extraterrestrial space.
As explained above, eventually there
will be many Extraterrestrials, few Terrestrials. We can understand the
practical or special interests that might prevent us from banning weapons and
their manufacture from today's Earth. Indeed,
someday there might be analogous practical or special interests in
extraterrestrial space unless we engage in foresight today to proactively and
enforceably ban weapons and their manufacture from extraterrestrial space.
On the one hand, our political
interests today may constrain us in our present time and place. But, on the
other hand, our political interests today may free us with respect to future
times and places (e.g. our extraterrestrial future). What this means is that today we have a realistic prospect of
proactively establishing the legal structure and enforcement powers needed for
a world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space.
If we wait until later, we may not be
so free to "do the right thing" and establish stable peace in
extraterrestrial space. Extraterrestrial space is immense; it is all of the
universe except for a single small planet. Eventually it might even become
feasible to extend stable peace to planet Earth and thus the entire universe.
It is my belief that the suggested
Extraterrestrial Space Treaty Organization (TO) will make a fine gift to our
offspring and, by the way, help present Earthlings as well. But if we want a
good world at stable peace (whether that world be Terrestrial Civilization or
Extraterrestrial Transcivilization), it would seem we must be willing to
unblinkingly face up to the following questions: Is stable peace possible if
each person or each people is passionately convinced that their worldview is
basically good and correct – and that other worldviews are evil or bad or
incorrect? If we could enforceably prevent each and every person from killing
any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews), would we do so? If
so, how would we resolve our conflicts fairly or justly?
One advantage we have in facing up to
these difficult questions is that we can use our imaginations to futuristically
view ourselves as Extraterrestrials living in intentional communities (SEGs or
O’Neill Habitats). We can further assume that a political structure there and
then exists that we describe as a good world at stable peace. These
Extraterrestrials of the future have liberties and technologies that
Terrestrials do not have today. Yet humans today have the ability and perhaps
the practical political will – via the TO proposal – to help insure humanity’s non-extinction and promote human flourishing in a free and prosperous
world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space (almost all of the universe).
I will assume that it is a fact that if
today's Terrestrials are to produce such an extraterrestrial Treaty
Organization (including effective enforcement provisions), it will require
agreement from a number of Peoples. How many persons or peoples would accept or
endorse a Space Treaty that effectively and enforceably bans weapons and their
manufacture from extraterrestrial space? In this context (a good and practical
legacy to our offspring), I should think we should be diligent enough to rally
enough supporters. For example, TO might be signed originally by, say, twenty
Peoples (including most of the "major" ones). But the Treaty would be strongly effectively enforced by TO’s Agency
for a Better Cosmos (ABC) – NOT by Peoples/States – against ALL and EVERYONE,
whether or not they sign the Treaty. Once in force, I would expect many
others to sign on – since the Treaty applies to them even if they do not sign
it. Sooner or later the Treaty really would have to be strongly effectively
enforced by the ABC against all and everyone, because eventually persons and
communities will permanently settle in extraterrestrial space. (Such a Treaty
also offers hope and inspiration to those of us of the present.)
Okay, you may say, this is a reasonable
enough start, but what other liberties, responsibilities, and political
structures would be appropriate for the Extraterrestrial World? So far, what we
presumably have is a partial prototype for an Extraterrestrial World at stable
peace. But what about conflicts and the plurality of deeply held religious and
philosophic worldviews?
Midwife
To An Evolving Extraterrestrial Society
The
TO would serve as midwife to an evolving Extraterrestrial Society.
What seems to me both
practical and fair in this context is to think in terms of an Extraterrestrial
Society of Intentional Communities. The previous analyses in sections 6 and 7
are suggestive. Each Intentional Community would have to work within the
framework of peace established immediately above and as articulated in more
detail below as “PFIT”; given such an Extraterrestrial Society framework of
requirements, consider now the following with respect to Intentional
Communities:
Each person is free to found new
(intentional) communities. Each Community would determine its own membership
requirements. Each Community would have its
own culture of liberties and responsibilities; a member would generally be
free to leave the community. A mechanism or set of mechanisms would be
established to insure that each member is fully and properly informed of their
liberty to leave the (intentional) community. (I suppose some communities might
still allow their members the possibility of experiencing serious physical pain
– but they would also allow a member to voluntarily leave their community. Too,
I suppose banning animal cruelty and serious animal pain would be desirable and
feasible. At least at first, this might mean with respect to animals that only
domesticated or farm animals would be allowed permanent residence in
extraterrestrial space?)
Note that some ("hermit")
communities would consist of only one person. On old Terra, it was often
difficult or impossible to leave one's community – sometimes expulsion
effectively meant the individual's death. The sustainable prosperous context of
the Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities is radically different.
If in the unlikely event this turns out not to be the case, then TO may not
work exactly as envisioned by me. But whatever the case may be, the TO would
have to be realistically flexible and convincingly knowledgeable of all
relevant technology including on the cutting-edge and perhaps too the merely
imaginable.
So at the level of the Society (of Communities) we have: (1) Peace: Weapons, weapons-making, and
violence (including animal cruelty and serious animal pain) are strongly
effectively enforceably banned (and so-called “research” would not be permitted
as a way to get around the ban); and, (2) Freedom:
Every individual person is fully aware of and fully informed of their general
liberty to leave their community. This too is strongly effectively enforced.
The Society and the communities necessarily work closely together to fully
insure the liberties and responsibilities associated with both Peace and Freedom. Also note that since there is "unlimited free land,”
this fact will additionally help prevent some old terra-style conflicts and
resolve or manage others (this would include some old-style civil conflicts).
At the level of Communities (in the Society) we have: (1) Intentionality (voluntariness): Within the good-faith transparent
enforcement of Society's basic principles of peace and freedom, each Community
has wide latitude for experimentation. Although there is a general liberty of
members to leave the (intentional) Community, this does not necessarily relieve
such persons from certain good-faith responsibilities to the Community; and,
(2) Transparency (accountability):
Each Community must strongly, effectively, and transparently help enforce the
Society's basic principles of peace and freedom.
I believe the political theory or
moral-political approach I have invented above with respect to TO is unique and
original. The “PFIT” (Peaceful, Free, Intentional, Transparent) framework here
presented differs from the "Law of Peoples" conception of John Rawls
in that TO is meant to be structured so as to necessarily ultimately generate
an Extraterrestrial Law of Persons. Yet TO takes seriously the distinction
Rawls makes between a "political
conception" and "comprehensive
doctrines." A political
conception or model addresses persons only with respect to, or at the level
of, citizenship. However, comprehensive
doctrines or worldviews, whether religious or secular, address the full
range, or deep levels, of one’s personhood and relationships. In my
"Society of Communities" theory, Society
corresponds to a political
conception or model, and Communities
represent numerous comprehensive
doctrines or worldviews.
“Is stable peace possible if each
person or each people is passionately convinced that their worldview is
basically good and correct – and that other worldviews are evil or bad or
incorrect?” If you can sincerely and in
good faith agree to my TO political conception (my approach above), the answer
to this question appears to be YES, such stable peace is possible. If you can
at most only agree to my TO approach as a temporary compromise, then the answer
may be NO.
That is to say: Persons of Comprehensive Doctrine X may be passionately
convinced that their worldview is basically good and correct – and that other
worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect. Likewise, persons of Comprehensive Doctrine Y
may be passionately convinced that their worldview is basically good and
correct – and that other worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect. YET if X persons, Y
persons, and other persons (holding numerous differing comprehensive doctrines) can sincerely and in good faith agree to
my TO political conception (my
approach above), then stable peace is possible. Otherwise, they may consider
agreeing to TO only as a temporary strategic compromise (thus ultimately open
to future use of force and violence).
Accordingly, a major part of my TO or
PFIT political conception is that the
Treaty must be strongly effectively enforced by TO’s Agency for a Better Cosmos
(ABC) – NOT by Peoples/States – against ALL and EVERYONE, whether or not they
sign the Treaty. As Camus says in The Rebel: “Rebellion is in no way the demand for total
freedom. On the contrary, … the rebel wants it to be recognized that freedom
has its limits everywhere that a human being is to be found … The more aware
rebellion is of demanding a just limit, the more inflexible it becomes. … The
freedom he claims, he claims for all; the freedom he refuses, he forbids
everyone to enjoy. He is not only the slave against the master, but also man
against the world of master and slave.” (1991: 284)
Our proposal for extraterrestrial peace and freedom may be
likened to an unswerving arrow
in that it has a strong and effective enforcement mechanism (TO’s Agency for
a Better Cosmos). As
Camus said: “The more aware rebellion is of demanding a just limit, the more
inflexible it becomes.”
(1991: 284) Indeed,
the final sentence of The Rebel concludes (1991: 306): “At the moment of supreme
tension, there will leap into flight an unswerving arrow, a shaft that is
inflexible and free.”
"If we could enforceably prevent
each and every person from killing any person over a conflict (say, a conflict
of worldviews) would we do so? If so, how would we resolve our conflicts?"
If you can sincerely and in good faith (instead of merely as a temporary
compromise) agree to my TO approach above, then stable peace in
extraterrestrial space seems both possible and desirable. This approach, so I
believe, realistically outlines a structure of stable peace for World Society
and local Communities in extraterrestrial space – pointing toward conflict
management in the new framework and encouraging subsequent projects to invent
needed specifics.
According to TO, the architectures of
extraterrestrial settlements will have to be PFIT (Peaceful, Free, Intentional,
Transparent). Indeed, the architectures of all extraterrestrial structures will
have to be congruent with PFIT. TO, via TO’s ABC (Agency for a Better Cosmos),
will proactively enforce the PFIT requirements. TO and ABC will have to be on
the cutting edge of such changing technologies if they are to successfully
fulfill their missions. PFIT preplanning
and PFIT retrofitting of PFIT
extraterrestrial settlements and structures will be an ongoing task.
§12 Extraterrestrial Turning Point
The (increasingly suicidal?) political
structure of island Earth, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of
Persons, is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both
desirable and feasible to establish a Terrestrial Law of Peoples (via the UP
proposal). The (dangerously underdeveloped?) political structure of
extraterrestrial Space, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of Persons,
is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both desirable and
feasible to establish a Treaty Organization of peoples structured so as to
necessarily ultimately generate an Extraterrestrial Law of Persons (via the TO
proposal).
At this doubly-unique terrestrial-extraterrestrial point in world history, UP-TO is
politically doable. World posterity would be eternally grateful to the EU and
others for playing leading roles in birthing the joint UP-TO project. A window
of opportunity has opened to the world. It is an open invitation for the world
to achieve peace, freedom, and prosperity for the first time in history.
§13 From Man-unkind to Meridian-kind?
Beyond the UP-TO task, now for some more expansive remarks with respect
to Omniverse Theory and its related projects. Broadly speaking, Meridian
Rebellion can be said to support and enrich Omniverse Theory; let me explain
further. Three such Camus/ Camusian insights are: (1.) I rebel, therefore we exist; (2.) We are
alone; and, (3.) Live and let live. Omniverse
Theorists would interpret or re-interpret these insights so as not to forfeit their
ontological intimations: the omniverse, abstracted from a “My-I” perspective,
has both temporal (contingent) and paragonal (non-contingent/ axiological) realms
or aspects. Thus when the Meridian Rebels pragmatically maintain that we are
alone, the Omniverse Theorists will add contextual brackets as follows: “Virtue
cannot separate itself from [temporal] reality without becoming a principle of
evil. Nor can it identify itself completely with [temporal] reality without
denying itself.” (1991: 296)
Additional insights (as well as the UP-TO Project) have been articulated
above based on Meridian Rebellion (and Omniverse Theory). We have individual-rights to life-liberty; likewise
we have mutual-obligations of life-liberty.
If we have individual-rights to life-liberty, then we have mutual-obligations
to create and sustain such a world society.
We are mutually obligated to create and sustain a world society of
life-liberty. Edmund Burke in 1790 pointed out that society is “a partnership
not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those
who are dead, and those who are to be born.” Accordingly, with Meridian
Rebellion and Omniverse Theory in mind, we must be committed to a perpetually
evolving world society at stable peace with enduring freedom for everyone,
including the dead. The ethical imperative to develop a science-technology with
the ability to resurrect all of the dead is part of Omniverse Theory, and the
imperative is provided with further motivational and epistemological support
from Meridian Rebellion.
Camus realizes that Meridian Rebellion (rebellion with limits) changes everything.
Our common nature (“I rebel, therefore we are”) applies not only to humans
present and past – but also to our offspring, to those transhumans and
posthumans of the eras that come after the Technological Singularity (famously
predicted by Vernor Vinge to be a 21st century occurrence: “the imminent creation by technology
of entities with greater-than-human intelligence”). Thus it seems, in apparent contradiction to
some predictions, that it is NOT the case that we know nothing whatsoever about
post-Singularity realities. According to Camus, perhaps we may be able to turn
science-technology around so as to serve life-liberty instead of
death-ideology. Camus does not believe that this Ethical Singularity or moral imperative
or “terrible necessity” is guaranteed even if it were “possible” – but in the event
it should occur: “This terrible necessity [technology for living instead of for
dying] will mark the decisive turning-point” in history. (1991: 295)
Future persons (as did previous persons) have mutual obligations (as do “present”
persons) to future and “present” persons – and to previous persons. In the
words of Camus: “All may indeed live again, … but on condition that it is
understood that they correct one another, and that a limit, under the sun,
shall curb them all.” (1991: 306) After the Singularity, as
before, attempting to exist either above or below the meridian serves death
instead of life. The alternative is Meridiankind, a perpetually evolving mutual
adventure society of life and liberty.
§14 Closing Remarks
Predicting rain doesn't count, building arks does.
-- Warren Buffett
This article added more support and depth
to Omniverse Theory (Tandy 2009). We looked at the philosophic works of Albert
Camus and concluded that they provide further axiological insight helpful to
the ethical-political development and application of Omniverse Theory. With
such Camusian insights in mind, we expanded Omniverse Theory with respect to
pragmatic proposals meant to improve terrestrial society, ban extraterrestrial
weapons, and proactively structure an extraterrestrial world at stable peace
fit for free persons living in self-sufficient green-habitat intentional
communities. Conceptually, it was found that individual rights are ethically
required and that these individual rights in turn ethically require mutual
obligations. Such a perpetually-evolving peaceful-and-free world society
(“Meridiankind”) cuts across generations, generating an ethical imperative to
develop anti-death science-technology with the ability to resurrect all of the
dead.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Glen Harold
Stassen (Fuller Theological Seminary) for first introducing me to the thoughts
of Albert Camus and of John Rawls more than four decades ago. Part A above is adapted
from (Tandy 2010b); and, Part C above is adapted from (Tandy 2010c).
NOTES
1 But
see below: Ҥ4. Camus And Anti-Absurdity:
The Rebel” (see specifically the
subsection: “Part Five Of Five
Parts Is Entitled: Thought At The Meridian”).
2 With reference to my UP-TO related research, I would
like to thank the philosophy department of
3 Much of the UP section of this paper (§10) is based
in part on John Rawls, The Law of Peoples: with “The Idea of Public
Reason Revisited” (
4 See The American Interest (January-February
2007). The article by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay (“Democracies of the World,
Unite”) is available at <http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=220>.
5 Part of my inspiration for the TO idea comes from Dr.
Carol Rosin and her website at <http://www.peaceinspace.com>.
6 “Extraterrestrial O’Neill Habitats” (or “SEG
communities”) – See, for example: (A) P. Ulmschneider, “O’Neill-Type Space
Habitats and the Industrial Conquest of Space,” Chapter 16 in Charles Tandy
(editor), Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7 (
7 “Molecular Drexler Technology” – Molecular
nanotechnology’s founder and founding book is K. Eric Drexler, Engines
of Creation (New York: Anchor Press, 1987). This book is available free
on the internet. Also see, for example: (A) Judith Light
Feather
and Miguel F.
Aznar, Nanoscience
Education, Workforce Training, and K-12 Resources. (
8 For such quotations as in this paragraph, see the
websites Spaceflight or Extinction <http://www.spaext.com> and Space
Quotes to Ponder <http://www.spacequotes.com>.
REFERENCES
Asimov,
Buffett, W. 2011, [Quotation: “Predicting rain doesn't count, building
arks does.”] <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/32917.html>.
Buford, T. O. 1984, Personal Philosophy:
The Art of Living.
Burke, E. 1790, Reflections on the Revolution in
[“SOCIETY
is indeed ... a partnership not only between those who are living, but between
those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”]
Camus, A. 1955, “Preface” [pages v-vi of:] The Myth of Sisyphus, and Other Essays.
Camus, A. 1991, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt.
Camus, A. 2005, The Myth of Sisyphus.
Carter, V. and Dale, T. 1974, Topsoil and Civilization.
Daalder,
Diamond, J. 2005, Collapse: How Societies Choose to
Fail or Succeed.
Drexler, K. E. 1986, Engines of Creation.
Evans, J. D. G. 1995, “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” in The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy (Ted Honderich, Editor), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Feather, J. L., and
Aznar, M. F. 2010, Nanoscience Education, Workforce
Training, and K-12 Resources, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Ford, B. J. 2009, “Culturing Meat For The Future:
Anti-Death Versus Anti-Life,” In Tandy, C. [Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm
(1033-1109),
Gore, A. 2006, An
Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can
Do About It,
Hall, J. S. 2005, Nanofuture:
What's Next for Nanotechnology,
Heppenheimer,
T. A. 1977, Colonies
in Space,
Hornyak, G. L., et al. 2008, Introduction to Nanoscience,
Kowal, C. T. 1988, Asteroids, Their Nature and Utilization,
Lewis, J. S. 1997, Mining the Sky, Reading, MA: Helix Books, Addison-Wesley.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge,
O’Neill, G. K. 2000, The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space,
Ratner,
M.
A., and Ratner, D. 2002, Nanotechnology: A
Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea,
Rawls, J. 1971, A Theory Of Justice,
Rawls, J. 1999, The Law of Peoples: with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”,
Rosen, C. 2009, The Institute for Cooperation in Space (website): <http://www.peaceinspace.com>.
Schmookler, A. B. 1984, The
Parable of the Tribes,
Seg-communities. 2008, <http://www.ria.edu/seg-communities>.
[Seg-communities = Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitats, or O’Neill
communities.]
Sen, A. 1999, Development as Freedom,
Spaceflight
or Extinction. 2010, <http://www.spaext.com>.
Space Quotes
to Ponder. 2010, <http://www.spacequotes.com>.
Spaceset. 2010, [Bibliography.] <http://spaceset.org/p.bib.mm>.
Stein, G. H. 1979, The Third Industrial Revolution,
Tandy, C. 2004, "Earthlings Get Off Your Ass
Now!: Becoming Person, Learning Community," In Tandy, C. (Editor), Death And Anti-Death, Volume 2:
Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing,
Tandy, C. 2006/2011, “‘Wild-West’ Versus ‘Space-Age’ Systems Science: An
Extraterrestrial Prisoner’s Dilemma?”
<http://www.ria.edu/papers/wildwest/index.htm>.
Tandy, C. 2009, “Omniverse in the First Person,” Applied Ethics Review 47, pp.1-42.
Tandy,
C. 2010a, 21st Century Clues: Essays in
Ethics, Ontology, and Time Travel,
Tandy, C. 2010b, “Camusian Thoughts About The Ultimate Question Of Life," In Tandy, Charles (Editor), Death
And Anti-Death, Volume 8: Fifty Years After Albert Camus (1913-1960),
Tandy, C. 2010c, “The UP-TO Project: How To Achieve World Peace, Freedom, And Prosperity,”
In Tandy, Charles (Editor), Death And Anti-Death, Volume 8: Fifty Years
After Albert Camus (1913-1960),
Ulmschneider, P. 2006, Intelligent Life in the Universe, Principles and Requirements Behind Its
Emergence, 2nd
Ed. Heidelberg,
Ulmschneider, P. 2009, “O’Neill-Type Space Habitats and the Industrial Conquest of Space,” In
Tandy, C. [Editor]
(2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109),
Vinge, V.1993/2003/2011, [His famous “Technological Singularity” article.]
<http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/WER2.html>.
[“the
imminent creation by technology of entities with greater-than-human
intelligence.”]
Voltaire.
1767, [Wrote to
Watson, B. 1964, Han Fei Tzu: Basic Writings,
Williams, L. and
------------------------------
OMNIVERSE THEORY WEBPAGES
§
TOP OF PAGE [before PART ONE]
§
PART ONE [“Omniverse In The First
Person”]
§
PART TWO [“Extraterrestrial Turning
Point”] (PART
TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE)
§
SOME RECENT WORKS BY DR. TANDY [list of works]
§ SOME ADDITIONAL RELATED WORKS [list
of works]
(PART TWO IS ON ITS OWN WEBPAGE: THE PRESENT PAGE)
[1] But see below: “§4. Camus And Anti-Absurdity: The Rebel” (see specifically the
subsection: “Part
Five Of Five Parts Is Entitled: Thought At The Meridian”).
[2] With reference to my UP-TO
related research, I would like to thank the philosophy department of
[3] Much of the UP section of
this paper (§10) is based in part on John Rawls, The Law of Peoples: with “The
Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (
[4] See The American Interest (January-February
2007). The article by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay (“Democracies of the World,
Unite”) is available at <http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=220>.
[5] Part of my inspiration for
the TO idea comes from Dr. Carol Rosin and her website at <http://www.peaceinspace.com>.
[6] “Extraterrestrial O’Neill
Habitats” (or “SEG communities”) – See, for example: (A) P. Ulmschneider,
“O’Neill-Type Space Habitats and the Industrial Conquest of Space,” Chapter 16
in Charles Tandy (editor), Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7
(
[7] “Molecular Drexler
Technology” – Molecular nanotechnology’s founder and founding book is K. Eric
Drexler, Engines of Creation (New York: Anchor Press, 1987). This book
is available free on the internet. Also see, for example: (A) Judith Light
Feather
and Miguel F.
Aznar, Nanoscience
Education, Workforce Training, and K-12 Resources. (
[8] For such quotations as in
this paragraph, see the websites Spaceflight or Extinction
<http://www.spaext.com> and Space
Quotes to Ponder <http://www.spacequotes.com>.