The Western tradition of morality was traditionally justified by recourse to nature, nature was purportedly granted to humans and nature in turn gifted rights to humans. This notion of mythical gifting whereby nature is gifted to humans and nature despite ostensibly “belonging to humans” gifts back rights to humans is obviously not only without any kind of foundation but is furthermore fully irrational. At least until the 19th century were individual rights referred to as natural rights and only in the 20th century did White racial supremacism become succeeded by Human racial supremacism and natural rights were renamed as racial supremacist so called “human rights”.
Yet we strive for freedom and many other things precisely because we are Animals ourselves as natural rights are precisely about us being Animals. The false racial supremacist ideology of human exceptionalism has no scientific foundation whatsoever unless you believe that those with comparatively relatively higher IQs are somehow intrinsically entitled to abuse, disenfranchise, exploit, murder, rape and torment those with comparatively “lower” IQs.
While anatomically being fully herbivore have humans increasingly developed into zoological parasites in terms of social behavior, yet this is fully socially reversible indeed. There is of course the fallacious argument that due to the existence of predators are human parasitic behaviors somehow intrinsically justified. The Nazis similarly falsely claimed to be predators in systematically abusing fellow human persons.
The argument also goes the other way around, in claiming that since humans themselves are mass parasitical abusers are ecosystems ostensibly somehow something noble, good, just and laudable. This is the equivalent of saying that since Nazism and Stalinism were both bad do they somehow “naturally” justify each other.
Universal emancipation importantly requires outlawing structural oppression under international law. This requires not only ending structural oppression by human persons against human persons and non-human persons alike but it also requires ending structural oppression in nature itself, i.e. in societies of non-human persons who have not been enslaved by humans, in other words ending structural oppression in nature.
How then can this be done? This may seem an almost insurmountable task and so how can that be attained? First, this is a challenge of social engineering as also involving genetic engineering in transforming predators into herbivores while exterminating parasites that cause harm and suffering unless of course they could be genetically redesigned into behaving otherwise.
This therefore also requires ending evolution in the sense as based on systemic abuse and violence by the strong against the weak. Contrary to traditional Europeans conceptions of morality is nature not just, on the contrary is it terribly unjust. Evolution is a long chain of coincidences and as there has so far been no plan behind nature is its historical development random and entirely without moral teleology of any kind.
Humans traditionally lived similar to the feminist Bonobos (Gracile Chimpanzees) in forests and by means of plant-based nutrition. The human parasitical turn is anything but just and so we need end the abomination of increasing development of human parasitism as typically justified by recourse to human racial supremacism.
Yet, we need reappropriate the notion of natural rights and natural liberty as these are precisely about our being Animals indeed. To divide natural rights into racial supremacist “human rights” and subordinate “animal rights” of racially designated sub-persons is simply racial segregation similar to how designated Whites and designated non-Whites were assigned unequal “rights” in Nazi Germany, Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa.
In conceiving of natural rights need we precisely reappropriate the ancient Greek conception of philosophy, namely literally as “love of wisdom”. Political history informs us much about what is good and what is folly in politics and so political wisdom is essential to safeguarding all that is perpetually valuable on this shared planet of ours. Axiomatic law needs indeed be founded on political wisdom in being able to understand political implications of ethical axioms in terms of their impact as well as interaction with other legislated ethical axioms.
We need therefore not only genetically redesign and socially engineer nature but importantly also reappropriate political wisdom as natural indeed. What does political wisdom mean? In following Nietzsche are there two levels to that, namely the moral realm and the ethical realm. The moral realm is the nature of conditions as they currently are in effectively forcing us to act in self-interest and indeed both individually and collectively so. Victim of aggression need obviously to defend themselves by means of war of defense just as many non-human persons deploy violence in order to individually/collectively survive. The ethical realm however relates to how things ought to be in enabling ethical choice and that certainly requires comprehensive social engineering including innovative ethico-political genetic design, including ending genetic ageing.
Is social engineering then truly a good thing? That is an interesting question indeed. First, social engineering needs be ethical and not merely moral and second needs social engineering also be effective and efficient in actually successfully ethico-politically redesigning reality as set out to do. This means that we need first patiently try out in small scale contexts so as to be able to evaluate the degree of success and potential pitfalls alike long before implementing on a large scale. This quite obviously means that the experimental phase must not only be highly ethical without any unethical experimentation whatsoever, but that the try-out phase must also be rigorously scientific. Political wisdom of the ethical domain (as opposed to the moral domain) is furthermore absolutely essential as the processes of social engineering need be fully anchored in ethical axiomatic law. Unless those very stringent requirements are fulfilled from planning to macro-implementation does ill-advised social engineering have the potential of causing much suffering and tragedy indeed.
The moral domain is typically a result of lack of imagination and even typically disinterest in devising better options by means of conceptual, social and technological innovation. What is traditionally known as “human nature” actually refers to the vast diversity of highly divergent psychometric profiles in the many living species and the many living subspecies of the homo genus as the notion of humans being one single subspecies is a Para-Christian unscientific construct of human racial supremacism considering the vast average psychometric diversity between human taxa.
Human too need to change genetically and primarily so by means of feminist eugenics. Yet what was traditionally described as “human nature” is also an outcome of the realm of the moral, namely that the way “reality” is currently socially constructed effectively forces us to make moral decisions rather than ethical ones such as waging defensive war causing collateral damage.
We need obviously learn from the tragic history of totalitarianism in how to not do things. Social engineering as based on conceptual, social and technological innovation obviously needs be rigorously scientific in allowing scientists to measure the outcome before with very high accuracy. Social engineering must thus be subject to open society. Social engineering must be comprehensive in leaving nothing to coincidence in striving towards becoming an increasingly exact science indeed.
In refashioning reality from one of structurally needing to misbehave in order to procreate and survive need we reengineer the welfare state by means of conceptual, social and technological innovation in thus cutting its current costs by over 90% but importantly also extend the welfare state to redesigned nature as well.
Redesigning nature by means of an increasingly exact science of ethico-political social engineering of conceptual, social and technological innovation therefore requires changing the very way we are used to think as we embrace and learn to apply evolving axiomatic law.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project