P6 Morality

CopyRight @ 1996

this is still individual behaviors, much war.

     Moral systems are the survival strategies utilized by the
individual, the family, the community and the society. They
include belief systems. There are
numerous different moral systems, some of them work together,
some do not. These survival strategies must provide for the
present generation and provide a potential for the generations
that follow. Due to the importance of moral systems, many show
characteristic potentials for corruption. That human behavior
strongly promotes the use of learned survival strategies, has
defined the importance of moral systems and has caused humans to
constantly try to codify the systems used by communities that
have persisted over time.
Individual beliefs......
Integrate in behavior....
a behavior is an action. Beliefs are why we act.
     Just as human biological characteristics and human
institutions were listed, this chapter is to describe relevant
characteristics of human beliefs and behaviors.

      Humans can accept the cost of any moral system as long as
it works... especially in the long run.

      A wise friend of mine said that the decline of the British
Empire corrosponded to the raising of male children by their
mothers rather than their fathers. This was a practice that grew
as the success of the empire lead to an affleunce that supported
a complex home life.. where the woman had more presence... It
makes sense in the context of warfare being the most masculine of
behaviors. Women would not promote warfare, indeed they would
more likely work against it. It is nearly fundementally immoral
from a feminine point of view. The British Empire, as most
empires, was built of and on war. You figure.
     So what is the lesson?
     Neither masculine or feminine is so unbalanced in basis or
strategy as to be extremely different. A "stable ecology" can
only differ from a "disturbed ecology" by so much. Both masculine
and feminine must have similar potentials, to respond to similar
situations that will occur in any ecology, disturbed or not.
Certain events comprise survival, regardless of the strategy that
is being used. Masculine and feminine is related to a disturbed
ecology and an undisturbed ecology, respectively. Can masculine
deal with an undisturbed ecology and feminine deal with a
disturbed ecology? This is a critical issue. Partly, it is the
question of "how can a peaceful person deal with an aggressive
person"? How can a passive principle deal with an active
principle? The other side of the question is whether a masculine
strategy can deal with an undisturbed ecology?
     The determining factor in history has been that the
militarists have won. The non-militarists have survived, using
strategies inherent to the stratified society, that might be
considered masculine since they were strategies for a disturbed
ecology. In this sense, is it aggressiveness is an active
principal of survival, without fighting, or is it a feminine
passive strategy, as a responce to a disturbed ecology.
The militarists have so decisivelly won, to present, that
almost all existing humans have enough potential for war that
deterence as a strategy works. Presently war is extremely costly,
because most humans can fight quite well. The focus of evolution
moves away from warfare because it is so common an ability. It
 will not go away, but it is limited by deterence.
     Rarely will humans exist in a relatively disturbed ecology.
It is against much of the definitions of ecology. Balances occur
and extremes vanish. This will be the force in the direction of
the feminine. It is unlikely that that a feminine strategy can
deal with a disturbed ecology, especially war. If a society
forgets war, it cannot prevent conquest by a society using
masculine strategies. This defines much of the nature of the
balanced that individuals and societies must strike to create a
lasting ecology.
     The question of masculine dealing with undisturbed ecologies
     Historically, genetically and philosophically, the only way
to deal with agression has been fight or flight. Flight, a
passive responce that includes appeasement, would have to be
. A fight responce would be ? mas fem fight responce?

        feminine may promote some fight responce, but it inherently
would not create a warfare responce. If warfare can be made a
successful strategy, as has been the case in recent human
history, only

     If masculine and feminine are only meaningful as a
description of social behaviors of organization and reproduction,
is war an altogeyher different behavior? Is interaction with
"other" groups, war, similar to, but fundementally different to
interactions within the society, that are aggressive features of
what is called called masculine and feminine? Within a society,
aggressiveness is a reproductive display behavior. Generally,
higher vertebrates, reproductive battles are displays that leave
little lasting damage. War, aggression against a different
society, is meant to kill. Some who are socially aggressive,
find that they cannot kill in a war.
     If war developed before social behaviors or as an offshoot
of of them, its specificity of function makes it so different
from social aggression, that it should be considered seperately
from the social behaviors of masculine and femine. It is a basic
instinct to survive dangers from outside the society. In this
context it is a bevahior basic to both men and women, especially
in wars of extremination.  It will continue to evolve that way.

this is aggressive behavior, do not forget belief.
***BEGIN 11  -- war

     As said already, aggressive is a word with many important
meanings to humans. The first meaning mentioned was as it acted
as an active principle that greatly enhanced creativity and other
abilities. The second view was as aggressiveness as a male
reproductive behavior, primarily display. The third view to
examine is real violence, its effects and corresponding beliefs.
The disruptive and dynamic effects of war have been a major cause
of hybridization. That includes the effects of marriage for
diplomacy and slavery.
     Almost all species instinctively avoid attacking or damaging
another member of their own specie. It is a hazard to the specie,
in the long run. For the vertebrates, aggressiveness normally
means displays with very little real damage done. Even the
impressive, bloody displays of the Elephant Seals, as they battle
for breeding beaches, rarely cause any significant injury. The
tendency to avoid damaging violence is called displacement
avoidance behavior
. The individuals of warrior races would have reduced
displacement behavior. At the same time, it would require a
greater ability to discriminate, who "their" people are, so as to
avoid attacking them. The lessening of displacement, would also
relate to the normal human view of "us and them". In general
then, war and most real violence is an anomaly in biology, but
then so are humans. Normally, creative habits are the rule. Few
other species can act as a predator on their own specie. No other
specie has had the diversity to be able to have a specialized
     Most human populations have always been very local and so
violence by an individual was most likely to hurt a person that
was related. Cooperation was the winning strategy. As agriculture
developed, violence became less appropriate to the grain farmers
that started the cities. It did become useful to the pastoralist
groups though. When the pastoralists attacked the cities, the
civil peoples could not even resist. As the niche for the cities
and agriculture developed, so did the niche for predatory human
groups with a reduced displacement behavior. All during the time
of the stratified society, the warriors ruled both due to the
effectiveness of aggressive strategies in the existing power
vacuums and because of its inherent organizational form. During
this period the focus of evolution strongly moved towards
selection for aggressive potentials. It seems likely that
will change now since aggressiveness has had such a selective
advantage that it is almost a universal trait. The open niche for
aggressiveness is closing. It is economical to conquer people that
cannot fight back, but even limited aggressive potential can make
a group difficult to subjugate. Aggressiveness is a social
behavior, actually a reproductive behavior, converted to a
resource strategy and a social system. The success of
aggressiveness was based more upon its organizational potential
than its exploitive potential. Aggressive races have tended to
cause their own demise.
     This then leads to a question of what aggressiveness would
mean in the circumstances that are developing, also, more
generally, is it more related to a question of a desire for
exploitation or control? At any time is aggressiveness to
subjugate or to replace the people being fought.
     Aggressive violence is not only a question of reduced
displacement behavior, it is a set of beliefs that is part of the
morality of the tribe and individual. In part, it is the belief
that violence is a very useful survival strategy. It works well
in a power vacuum where there is no aggressive response
available. It gets a little more complex, because the warrior is
taught that rarely is any violence tolerated within the tribe or
community. Violence is to be used only against "others". Violence
within the tribe would occur, but under highly regulated
conditions. A tribe that fights within itself, is risking
     For as much as it takes to motivate and train your average
soldier, it seems unlikely that most humans are predisposed to
real violence. What was one of the messages of the archetypical
figure, John Wayne? It was basically - do not start fights, but
never give in to aggression. Normal human response is, as
expected, avoid violence even if it means giving in. As human
ecologies have changed over time, there has been a general
increase in the utility of violence. That trend seems to be
peaking out with the present changes.
     War is a very developed art. To skip some speculation, most
history of violence is left unexamined. There were peaceful
times, ruthless times, brilliance and unbelievable excesses. By
itself, war has done very much to mold what we are. The most
important part of that though, relates to the values, beliefs and
institutions that were imprinted on culture by the conquering
races. As the utility of aggressive violence is reduced, what
about the aggressive aspects of the culture? The stratified
society was primarily created by and for warriors. We have been
ruled by warriors for more than 3000 years of our recent critical
development. Yet the progress of that time that is leading to a
mature civilization, was made by thinkers with very different
beliefs, values and strategies.
     It becomes a question of how a creative, peaceable person or
society can respond to aggression. Note that there is a
difference of point of view between masculine and feminine at
this point.  Feminine strategy suggests withdrawal, which fails as
a strategy in a multi-tribal situation. Another masculine,
war-like society would opt for victory. The only response to
aggression that is viable, is aggression, so an individual with
creative values must be able to back them up with aggression to
protect their existence and what they create. It is uneconomical
to attack a group or individual that will fight back. It is
always economical to attack a creative group that will not.
     Life is a challenge. Often we must make important decisions
with little background on the problem. Our present society is so
noticeably based on the exploitive values learned from our
militaristic ancestors, that a creative person is forced to be
very conscious of their beliefs and values, even if knowledge of
their source is limited. A person develops their own philosophy.
If our society and its individuals are developing in the
direction of a more creative existence, where will aggression
relate? A person might be opposed to violence, but recognize it
as the only real deterrent to violence..  Or else war will return.

     A thought to think.  Our survival is based on our social
habit.  Our social ability, much of our intelligence, is based
around communication.  What if we had telepathy?  What would be
some of the effects of the ability to communicate mind to mind.
An important aspect of social interaction involves deception.
Especially in a competitive situation, deception can be
important.  Perhaps psychic ability would cause problems.  More
relevantly, what about our sense of smell.  When talking about
communication, it must be considered that the sense of smell
can communicate a great deal of information.  A good sense of
smell would give many clues about a persons emotional state,
amoung other things.  Normally, evolution does not select against
an integral or functional trait, but is it posssible that
evolution has promoted limitations on some forms of human
communication.  Perhaps this is to allow an individual to be
deceptive....  It may be something related to men and women.
SELF   belief ?  behavior? under consideration of altruism, like repro
************* start 10 ??? selfishness
*******selfishness one of many common and well known mistakes
against social survival, add more
     This is written about survival. It is to describe a number
of factors and their meanings. Especially important are
moralities, or survival techniques and are taught primarily by
families and secondarily by religions or media. Of all the
lessons that must be taught and learned, there is one worth
mentioning at this point for reference through this book. We must
learn to avoid simple mistakes like thinking that the simplest
answer must be the best or that if it works now, use it
regardless of future consequence. What has to be the commonest of
silly mistakes committed all to often is unnecessary selfishness.
We have gotten where we are by the ability to cooperate. The
simplest concept is to think of taking care of only your self. It
is an excess of interest in personal satisfaction at the cost of
family or society. One component of social behavior is to be able
to understand why a society is a cooperative effort and why
helping the society helps oneself. It must also be taught to
children as a moral precept. All through this book complex ideas
are discussed, many go against habits and instincts that are
appropriate to our past, but the simplest and commonest place
that people seem to make stupid mistakes, is balancing immediate
self interest. Between short sightedness and simple selfishness,
we could easily go extinct without even having to resort to a
difficult or complex dilemma.  We could die of sillyness. These
are discussed more later.
##   Humans are highly social.  To be mature, a human must have their
social behaviors highly developed.  A person must know communication,
cooperation, respect, love, reliance and other complex behaviors that
are learned during our long childhood.  As with other behaviors, there
is a genetic basis for the potential of the behavior.  Then the
behavior must be learned by education or discovery.  For humans, the
normal way to develop social behaviors, is by education and example of
family and community.  Behaviors with a strong genetic base develop
easily with a little appropriate education.  In the absence of
adequate education, the individual still requires the behavior.  It is
not just the communities push for conformity, it is also the
individuals need to function in the society that pushes the
development of social behaviors.  A person will work to develop a
social behavior that they were not taught, so that they can function
in the society.  If a person does not learn the more complex social
behaviors as a child, they will only learn them as an adult if the
need is there.  The genes alone are not enough to teach complex
behaviors.  A person must eventually learn these behaviors or they
will not function properly or be happy.  This all leads to a point
about wealth.  A feature of wealth, referring to affluence rather than
wealth as a tool, is that it can give a great deal of independence to
its user.  If a family has wealth and fails to carefully teach its
children the important social behaviors, the independence of the
children will prevent them from ever learning to be social or mature.

     Due to our long life and the general circumstance of human
existence, it is common that a few times in our life we end up in
serious difficulty. What may be a small gesture by another
person, may figuratively or literally, be a lifesaver. A small
expenditure of effort may result in a large positive effect. This
situation is common and so has had great importance to human
survival strategy as they have adapted to the continuously
changing circumstances of human ecology.
     There is a cute term in biology, ontogeny recapitulates
phylogany and it may be literally true. It is usually to refer to
the development of a fetus. As a fetus develops it goes through
stages reflective of the phylogenetic route of the organisms
evolution. This is why a human shows gills, a tail and other
vestigial traits during fetal development. It seems that there is
a corresponding situation in the development of human psychology.
Maturity brings the behaviors of a civil human. When young, we
exhibit behaviors that are simple and seemingly like the
behaviors of earlier forms. Selfishness is the behavior most
appropriate to a pre-tribal or early tribal human. Cooperation is
a behavior of humans, highly developed since the time of the big
game hunters. Still, it requires great learning to truly utilize
and value cooperation.
     Lack of cooperation may be because of lack of knowledge,
lack of skill or lack of inclination. It may be lack of
education, stupidity or intentional out of malice or some
dominance game. It is unfortunate that one of the offshoots of
aggressive values is demonstration of control by obstuctionism.
Human organization is so complex and fragile that an individual
can disrupt a larger organization, that they are part of. It is
hard to believe how much one turkey can disrupt traffic flow on a
highway by stupidity, carelessness or intent.
     Development of inclination and technique for cooperation,
including communication, is an essential part of future human
########################################################## END of 10

***************** START 11
be behaviors
                        FREEWAYS ?

     This is another model, that is to describe some behaviors.
Consider a word like altruism. It means acting to help another.
In terms of genetics, it is extremely important, but from the
same point of view, it must be considered whether the act of
altruism "harmed" or cost the person acting altruistic or if
their assistance did not cost them. Also the idea of altruism
inherently relates to genetic relatedness. In any case, there is
great limitation to our ability to describe small, but
significant nuances to beliefs and behaviors. Consider the
meanings and consequences of any type of aggressive behavior.
Violent, active, exploitive, opportunistic, direct, indirect,
consequential,.. inconsequential.. in a social context. Some kind
of simplified model of social interactions must be developed.
There is a model where hundreds of simple social interactions can
be examined in a short period of time. Any transportation system
will serve, but after doing time on Sepulveda Pass, the system
used for this description is a freeway. This model is very
different than the previous one about cars reflecting genetics.
This model is to describe interactions that can be used to
reflect just about every social interaction. Some people go
faster and some people go slower. Most people go with traffic,
some do not care. Things are very different when the traffic is
heavy or light. The model can be used to examine consequences of
actions under different levels of load. It shows that an
aggressive / opportunist action that would be unnoticed under
conditions of low load, may be aggressive / exploitive and quite
consequential in a system with greater competition.
     Have you heard of a snake?  There is always rocket man there
on your left. There are dummies, crazies, clutzs and
conservatives. How about a Boston. That is where a line of left
turners travel bumper to bumper such as to prevent the cars going
straight, with the legal right of way, from proceeding. It is an
excellent analog, useful for understanding or communication, of a
particular interaction of individuals in a society. Consideration
of this model can be a great aid in conceptualizing some social
     Sometimes, passing a person on the highway does not
interfere with their progress. Especially if the highway is not
crowded. If the pass is done carelessly or when competing for
limited space, it slows the person down. This is a model of
aggressiveness. Sometimes an aggressive action does not effect
others. Sometimes it does. When resources are limited, the
meaning of aggressive goes from active to competitive or
exploitive. Funny little model, but worth thought.
     I grew up in L.A. during the period of time that included
much of the maturation of the freeway and its associated traffic.
Sepulveda pass was partly two lanes.  It is now ten plus lanes and
can take near an hour to cross if traffic is heavy.  In that time,
the driving habits have visibly developed. People have learned how
to make their trip smoother and efficient, in the face of some
truly nutsy traffic. People change lanes less frequently.
Observation shows that the different lanes generally move nearly
equally. There seems to be little advantage to much lane changing.
Since the nature of heavy traffic is movement in pulses, any lane
moving will soon stop and a stopped lane will soon be moving.
Only an excessive number of very fast, excellently planned moves
is going to make any qualitative difference in position. We have
all tested that. A smooth, straight drive produces the destination
almost as fast as any maneuvers that are even vaguely legal.
Strategy, planning of route, can help though.
     Traffic is a social interaction and it illustrates social
behaviors in other social circumstances.  One individuals actions,
effect others. Freeways, like society, has laws that regulate
these interactions.
     On a freeway, in the context of what the traffic load is at
the time, all different forms of social interaction can occur
quickly in simple schematic form.  Situations could be
 a.  Simple non-social active "aggressive"
     Active driving on a non-crowded freeway.
  b.  Active exploitive ( of situation ) social "aggressive"
      Taking advantage of an opening on a medium load freeway.
  c.  Active, aggressive, exploitive  "aggressive"
      Can only be social - cutting off someone to gain motion.
  d.  Active, aggressive, exploitive, territorial  "aggressive"
      Obstructing traffic.
  e.  Conformity
      Driving with traffic.
  f.  Non-conformity,  anti-social
      Causing obstruction by ignoring the flow of traffic.
  g.  Non-conformity,  social
      Not with flow of traffic, but avoiding causing obstruction
      By staying in slow lane
  h.  Failure of social behavior
      Not "aggressive" active enough to be able to drive the high
      energy system.
  i.  Stupidity
      Intentional or unintentional - self explanatory.
      Consequential, mistake, habit

*****************END 11

************************** BEGIN 12
2 belief systems/ mind sets -- to be ordered  belief
                    Zen And What Is That Good For

     In the realm of belief, it is amazing how much variation is
possible. If you are taught early that worms taste great, you
will always think worms taste great. One belief that will relate
both to genetic inclination and education has to do with what
might be called the work ethic. It is a mindset that is part of a
belief system, or morality, probably developed in marginal
regions settled by humans. It is a belief that promotes work as
virtue. It is a trait in response to a very demanding
environment. It has been referred to as part of a large moral
system and has been called the Protestant work ethic. To a large
extent, this is what has created the modern civil society.
     Zen is such an esthetically pleasing word. One of its
primary meanings is basically that if you are going to do
something, do it right. Partly, this belief is about the value of
quality. It is quite important and likely to become more so.
************************* END 12

********************** BEGIN 13
              Human Value and belief about power

     In some ways it is a bad idea to put a value on a human
life, other times it is instructive and even necessary. Simple
evaluations might consider the cost of pregnancy, child raising
and education. Another evaluation might look at what any
individual might produce ( by some standard ) in their lifetime.
It could be the human price of war. In any case, it is an issue
of importance and it leads to another critical item relating to
recent existence and the present changes we are experiencing.
      Ancient cities with elaborate stone structures can bring to
mind the potential creativity of an individual human with only
muscle power, drive, some organization and some technique. It
seems easy to comprehend, to some degree, the human cost of the
construction of the pyramids of Egypt or the walls of Babalon.
     Before the advent of agriculture, wealth was very limited.
It was mostly what a person could catch or find. Aside from
territory, there was very little that had value over time. That
might include tools, furs or ornaments, but there value was
extremely limited, especially when compared to something of real
value such as territory or technique. With farming, this changed.
Resources were concentrated in one place and often there were
surpluses. This allowed for the support of specialists that
devoted their time to occupations other than direct food
acquisition. There were engineers and astronomers to plan the
farming and there were millers, bakers, merchants and scribes to
process and distribute the food. There were also priests, as
before, to guide the people. Eventually, it also led to the niche
of the human predator, the warrior.
     Since that time, humans were ruled by the warriors. They
highly developed the concept of ownership, including the
ownership and value of humans. This was the beginning of power
and in many ways it was based on control of resources including
     Politics is based on power and world economics have been
controlled by those in power, power based on violence. With the
reduction of the effectiveness of aggressiveness as a strategy,
the basis of the resource strategy, economics, will change.
Presumably the change will be towards creativity, as was before
the rise of power. In this time, wealth and economics have grown
into an institution independent of power. Warriors can be hired.
Wealth can be transmitted to the next generation much more
effectively than can just power, but the basic system dictating
the organization of each is the same.
*************** END 13

***************** BEGIN 14

     Beliefs, behaviors.. values, philosophy.. morality,
strategy.. balance. What is your conceptual continuity? People
have trouble answering a question of what their philosophy is,
but ask a person about their values and they will certainly be
able to answer.
values are more related to behaviors than beliefs

Whatever a person believes, hopes, acts upon,
feels, values or imagines is compiled in a form of balance that
guides a persons behavior. This chapter is to describe some
beliefs and behaviors from different times and sources. The
examination is restricted to beliefs and behaviors that seem most
relevant to the transition.

     Beliefs can eventually be explained. Behaviors can be much

More bullshit

******************* BEGIN 15
more beliefs
                 Spectrums and Balance of Belief

     Many human behaviors and beliefs can be described as
spectrums, dualities and balances. Sometimes it even means
something. It is part of how we adapt.
     So much of the reality of psychology does relate to balance.
It is why we seek explanations for the unknown. Perhaps it could
be better called tension.
    There are balances in an individual relating to masculine
verses feminine. There are balances in the making of a decision.

     When considering the balance of human psychology or more
specifically, an individuals understanding of their world, it does not
need to be completely logical or even complete, but it must be
consistent.  An individual may even have one knowledge and belief
system that they use for operating their life and another collection
of knowledge and belief that is being examined for utility and
consistency.  On special occasions, different systems can be used.
b+b     A person that is selfish may be too self centered to
effectively act in any social situation including community,
family or child raising.

     Does "ego" refer to ones self opinion or self opinion in relation
to others.  Ego is a different thing for everyone, but when it leads
to anti-social behavior is when it is overdeveloped in relation to
others.  A person with too high of a relative opinion of themselves
cannot interact effectively socially.
#### ? move
     The hybridization of two different psychological traits
will produce a psychological balance. Consider the
characteristics of a timid, civil Sumerian crossed with
aggressive, mobile northern warrior. Not only is there some
conflict and resolution, there is also an ability to judge and
consider, that is developed by the creation of the balances that
any individual must make to resolve their own conflicting drives.
This ability for judgemental balance is extremely important to
humans as we develop.
     This book says that the niche of the warrior is closing
because knowledge of and ability for warfare, is wide spread and
common enough that warfare fails as a strategy. It becomes
uneconomical. It is only economical to carry on a war with groups
that are not warlike. What would happen if peace lasted long
enough for war to be forgotten? It is not really a natural state.
If the ability and knowledge of war were lost, might not the
niche reopen?
     This book describes resources and wealth. It describes
resources as food, money, beauty, position, brains, affluence,
personnel wealth, social wealth, natural and created wealth,
genetics, poverty, and status. How does one strike a balance
between wealth and morality.
     This book is about how the improvement of the human
condition has contributed to damage and danger to the whole human
gene pool as well as the moral and cultural basis of our society.
Only artificial selection can offset the genetic hazards, but
what knowledge and beliefs must we develop to create the society
that we will require.

     How can a balance be struck in issues such as these?

This whole think looks like drivvel

     When talking about moral systems, religion must get a
special examination, because traditionally it has
been the main institution that has preserved the most basic
aspects of moral systems. The most basic moral systems relate to
the individual, family, community and resources. They usually
include rules about marriage, birth, death, eating practices,
sanitation, education and social law. They promote hope and
faith. Some religions and moral systems include broad social
rules and even political systems. Still the basic moral systems
are from tribes and so focus on rules that will serve a tribe or

     This is a discussion of morality.

    Religions are like other institutions. They are created to
perpetuate behaviors and beliefs that effect generation after
generation. The beliefs that they were created to preserve and
teach are what we call moralities. This has been the inherent
importance of religion. One must understand the relationship
between religion and morality. Religions, in order to perpetuate
themselves as any institution must, has taught an incorrect
relationship between morality and religion. They have claimed
that the source of morality is religion, rather than that the
source of religion is morality.
     The purpose of this book is to provide tools that
individuals can use. Moralities are the most important tools that
individuals or communities have for use. This discussion is to
illustrate the conflict that is resulting due both to the misuse
of religion and to changes that are presently occuring in what
human society is. Morality is important. People are taught to
think rationally. Religion has irrational elements. People with
developed intelligence tend to have a developed moral sense. The
irrationalities of religion repulse them while the morality
attracts them. An intelligent, moral person does not ignore
religion. They are aware of both its importance and problems,
read that irrationality and corruptability. This is written as a
tool for intelligent and/or moral people to make morality a tool
and science rather than some dogmatic part of conservative
religions. Astronomy, biology, philosophy and many other present
sciences were parts of the dogmatic religious institutions. They
were non-adaptive belief forms. They got replaced by forms that
were called sciences and were inherently adaptive and rational
rather than conservative and potentially irrational. This is to
move morality from the conservative and irrational to a science
that is analytic and open to analysis. This corrosponds to the
rational and analytic mindset that is becoming more common to
"modern" educated, technical individuals. This corrosponds to the
transition from the tribal to the hybrid. This corrosponds to the
teaching of how to understand moralities rather than learn by
rote the old, inherited methods. This corrosponds to the
Protestant reformation that has once already, demanded an
examination of Western beliefs and traditions. This
corrosponds to real development of moral and genetic principles.
The idea is to transform morality from a historic code of beliefs
into a science. The hardest part to this is the clear examination
of our early beliefs. We are designed not to examine our early
 Before there were priests, there was marriage.
 Before there were churches, there was reverence.
 Before people spoke of God, there was faith.
 Before there was religion, there were moralities.

     A large part of the function of religion has been to prevent
the spread of diseases, especially sexually transmitted diseases,
by isolating the community. Sometimes, this actually works
against other survival strategies.

part 2
     To a large extent, human ecologies are defined by our use of
learned survival strategies rather than instincts. Human survival
instincts include the tendency and desire to use learned survival
strategies. We have called these survival strategies moralities
and they have generally been preserved and taught by religions.
Though religions vary in their moral systems, the utilization of
religion has been almost universal to human groups. What would
one call an inheritable behavior to use a learned survival
strategy or moral system? This behavior is what is called faith.
It is usually associated with religion, because religion is what
has done the most to perpetuate the moral systems. Yet many people have faith
without religion and many that have religion have little faith. As a
survival instinct, faith is hope and the belief in the value of
self, family, community and the continuity that is represented by
survival. Why do we struggle to grow, survive and raise children?
It is faith. Many people have difficulty dealing with religion,
but they do not ignore it. Even though religion is unusable to
them and seems corrupted, their faith is what makes it an issue
that is not to be ignored. Religions have a knack for turning
things around and so they tend to claim that morality flows from
religion and not the other way around. They claim that faith is
faith in particular religion or god, their religion and god.
Faith is independent of any religion.

     If you have read literature by Ayn Rand, you were
undoubtably struck by it. It is meant to carry a heavy meaning
and message. For whatever its validity and seemingly complete
reasoning, it seemed to lack something. What if instead of saying
that "the ego is the fountainhead of all creativity" she had
instead said "faith is the fountainhead of all creativity"? The
books would have read the same and have been just as powerful,
but they would have perhaps felt more accurate.

     There are other moral systems as well. Many get incorporated
into religions. They are beliefs and systems that extend beyond
the more basic strategies relating directly to self, family and
community. These are the beliefs that relate to resource
strategies and are specialized to individual tribes and castes.
These resourse/caste strategies include those appropriate too the
traditional castes; priest, king, scribe, warrior, craftsman,
merchant, harvesters, peasents, etc.

     Some other moral systems are based around aggression and
warfare. They tend not to be as complete as the moral systems of
religion, because of inherent limitations to the niche. They
generally require extensive military educations. Basically, these
are the moralities of warrior castes. The moral systems of
warriors could be judged as superior because they must focus more
on the value of the society than the value of the individual.
They are more complex, even though their strategies are more

     The strategie of the farmer could be judged superior because
of its requirement for planning, patience, tenacity and technique.

     The craftsmen requires skill, training and patience.

     the priest requires faith as well as communication.

     The scribe requires intellectual skills that are a little
different than the more basic forms of intelligence provide. A
scribe must be able to read, write and do numbers.

     The warrior has reduced avoidence behavior and superior
physical capability. The warrior must be able to think and judge
very quickly.

      The king and ruling class/family must be extra-ordinarily
gifted and skilled. Competition is fierce at the top. A ruling
class needs more than strength or skills, they need a synthesis
of ability and knowledge. They need wisdom. This is why ruling
classes are international. Selection and competition has been
amoungst the most "superior"  of the best of the tribes.

     Other moral systems are based on sexuality. This can mean as
much more than beauty as beauty means more than secondary sexual
characteristics, as Darwin refered to it. Sexuality is closely
enough related to reproduction to be a powerful survival force.
The male strategy includes both numbers and projecting the
message; "I am the superior male". This includes beauty and other
signals of status. It might be said that beauty is universal,
natural or imitation status For females, the message is; "I will
have sex with you". Concious exploitation of this message and
behavior includes the roots of witchery. That is why feminine
sexuality can be so frowned upon. It is powerful and equally

     Some moral systems, notably those based on warfare or
harvesting the oceans, have a predictably high mortality rate
associated with the occupational basis of the system. In these
cases the community accepts the losses as part of the cost of the
survival of the community. Generally, provisions are made to aid
the families of the casulties. It takes a great moral strength
and commitment for a community to survive under conditions that
are harsh enough to cause an ongoing mortality rate. These moral
systems are hard to corrupt, but they can forget that survival is
the objective, rather than the challenge of the occupation.

     Other moral systems are based around economic activity.
Humans have developed ownership, barter, money, contracts,
investment and other features of economics as tools for
controlling resources and resource distribution. This represents
another system for close examination based on its importance and
pervasiveness. Its particular hazard is when the wealth becomes
more important than the survival values that it represents. The
same is true when wealth is equated with status. There are many
hazards to following the economic god. Presently, it demands
loyalty to the system of ownership founded largely by Alexander
and perpetuated by the Romans. It is a system that both protects
ownership and still is easily manipulated by conquorors to
"legally" transfer wealth without destroying the organizational
system that they will come to rely on.

     Morality is a funny thing. It is not an absolute. Values
relate to the individual, the family, the community and the
society. Morality dictates that there are competing values
between these groupings. Morality is different in different
frames. An individual may have to sacrifice for
the family or community. An individual may do something for their
family that they would not do for themselves. A person may
exploite or endanger their family or community for personal gain.
The primary unit of human survival has been the community. It
should carry the greatest moral value. The family should come
before the individual. Remember though, it took longer for
multi-cellular organisms to evolve from single cells, than it did
for single cell organisms to develop on the earth.
Cooperation can be more difficult than simple survival. The use
of moralities represents a fundementally new niche, more than any
other changing factor in the ecology of humans. We have alot to
adapt to.
     A community is genetically related. A society is a group of
communities that may not be related in the tribal sense. They are
all as related as any two human tribes, but in this sense they
are "relatively" genetically unrelated. Now civil societies,
cities, seem to be a basic unit of human interaction and
organization. Historically, the social system has been the
multi-tribal stratified society. Since, through most of human
evolution, morality generally refered to the "relatively" related
members of a tribe, what is the nature of moral systems that are
used between "relatively" unrelated groups. This is what is
called politics. The morality that we call politics is how
"relatively" unrelated humans interact. All in all, we are all
relatively related.

  Morality can be relative and have great consequence.
A person that feels morally justified may trash a person who is
bigger and stronger. An individual may do the super human to
protect their family. Lying or killing may violate moral
principles, unless it is to protect the community.

/////////////////////////////////////////HUH   move
 So this is to examine a science of
moralities, especially as it applies to humans. This implies that
there are characteristics of human survival strategies that are
qualitatively different than the strategies of other organisms
examined by biology. Humans have diverged and will continue to
diverge from the characteristic patterns of the rest of the
animal kingdom, just as plants and animals diverge. As suggested,
these changes largely relate to intelligence and tool use. Call
this study what you like, perhaps moralology. This is another
function of religion that may be changed to a science. Rarely can
religion look forward, a science can. The difficulty is the
complexity of the study that includes energetics, genetics,
behaviors, beliefs, technology, disease and a good dollop of
other factors, all observed in an unavoidably subjective context.

     It is observed here, that historically and traditionally,
moral systems are belief systems that are inherited by learning.
Their basis and utilization are not necessarily rational. Often,
it is quite the opposite. It even seems that we are inhibited
from examining beliefs that we are taught when very young. So,
does a rational examination of moral systems, inhibit their
utilization, because their basis may be irrational? If a person
does not have the fear and authority of God backing their moral
system, does that invalidate morality? If an individual is
reading this, they have faith enough that they will be moral
because they would choose to be, not because they were told to



put in morality onder individual
     In a sense, referring to personal based values verses
biologically based values is misleading. It could be called
selfish values verses social values. In ancient Greece, short
term values were called kinetic. It is like comparing aggressive
and creative strategies. One is quick, dramatic and very highly
visible. Creative strategies are slower and more subtle.
Excitement means something went wrong. Personal based strategies
bring quicker, more visible gratifications. Biologically based
values are much more complex and subtle, because they are the
methods we use to perpetuate the family and human society. Value
systems that can do this are called moralities, but here are
referred to as biologically based values. In the world as it is
developing, there are so many ways to have fun. It is so easy and
kinetic and visible ... and mindless and undirected and

The two points of view must both be considered
together when analyzing many different situations.


##  It looks as if there is the conflict of personal verses
survival. Survival means children and children mean work and
sacrifice. Humans are designed to raise children, well designed.
It is not just the satisfaction of love, stimulation, challenge
and occasional terror. It is all of raising children that leads
to a form of fulfillment, the form we are most designed for. Focus
on almost anything else, wanes.
     But if a person is unaware of the importance of the moral
values or is silly enough to be fully seduced by kinetic values
and pleasures, they will not survive in the moral or biological


PUT TOWARDS END OF BOOK    This is change three stuff.
     It is a change in belief that so many people hope for as we
create a cooperative and more creative civilization. It is what we
can do and part of how to do it, to transition to the next stable
ecology. It is how we can exploit the potentials of technology
while retaining the social comfort and equity of previous
ecologies that we find more natural and comfortable. We will have
to learn how to stay strong.
     This is one of the best of the few descriptions that I can
offer to describe one of the most fundamental things that humans
can achieve. It is related to what is referred to as the third
basic change, having to do with belief, in a time frame that is
the same as the stratified society ruled by militarists. It
started when the warrior found great success and ruled the world.
The warrior impressed his genes, values, strategies and beliefs
upon the societies that he conquered. There were pluses and
minuses, to the rule by the warriors. Presently, aggressive
potential is common enough to inhibit the success of aggressive
strategies and so the focus of evolution goes back to social and
technical intelligence. We will be transitioning from a niche
based largely on exploitive aggressiveness to the more common
niche based on creative practices.

     Biology has some interesting features, especially when it is
used to describe humans. Plant genetics can be used to offer an
analogy to illustrate extremely important elements of the present
human situation. The main difference in the model relates to that
it describes the genetic variation of one plant, rather than a
population. Still, it is easy to understand the meaning of the
model applied to humans.
     In animals, the genes transmitted to the offspring are in the
reproductive organs. Any inheritable mutations must occur in the
germ cells of the reproductive organs ( one of the reasons for
the significance of recombination as an adaptive strategy ). A
mutation in any cell in the rest of the body, is not inheritable
( it would be like super-Lamarckian evolution ).
     In a plant it is a quite different and fascinating
situation. Non-reproductive branches and leaves grow out and then
produce reproductive organs. If there are mutations in the
branches and leaves, they are mutations that appear in the
reproductive organs. This is extremely beneficial because it
gives the potential of each branch to develop genetic adaptations
to the actual environment. If one branch on a plant should
develop a mutation that works better in that particular place, it
will pass that mutation in its seeds. That single branch, if
efficient enough, may replace the rest of the plant growth, but
the roots might still be of the previous growth. Its flowers
would carry the mutation.
     So how can this be converted to a useful illustration of
     Recent circumstances might be likened to an area where a
mature forest had been burned. In this area, a long lived bush
has just started growing. It is a plant that normally grows
where it can in the light of the forest floor. It produces two
branches. Both are adapted to the usual light level of the forest
floor and are actually stressed from the direct sun light. One
branch has a mutation that allows it to convert more of the light
into growth, at the cost of increased water usage. The other
branch survives ( evolution is quite conservative ), but cannot
grow. The first branch becomes most of the plant. Then, the
forest regrows and conditions change. Both light and water are
scarce. The second branch is more adapted to these conditions of
a mature forest. Then it grows and the first branch is withered.
     So what is the connection? For humans, some of our creative
potentials peaked with the advent of agriculture. It was our
normal situation, like the bush in a mature forest. The opening
of the niche of the warrior or human predator, based on the
productive potential of agriculture, was like the burning of the
forest.  Hybridization and selection, resulting in the present
condition of where the traits of the warrior ( and increased
intelligence besides aggressiveness) are relatively common, is
closing the niche of the warrior and the stratified society. It
is like the regrowth of the forest and return to relatively
normal conditions. As mentioned elsewhere, this is represented by
the defeat of Hitler and rejection of a new military ruling
class. We are returning to the condition that is most normal to
humans and biology. It is a creative habit that can be related to
physical laws, if you really want to. In any case, the primary
values of the last 5000 years are related to aggressive
strategies. The ecology is now starting to demand creative
abilities and strategies again, as is the normal condition.
Unlike the bush model though, the population will always retain a
high frequency of the genes for the potentials of aggressiveness
( or the ecology will open again ). This book is meant as a tool
or strategy for the individuals that would like to live in an
ecology based on creative principals - as is normal. This ecology
is reopening, but it is being actively resisted by those that are
most adapted to the aggressive environment and those that know no
other strategy.
     If an individual is unaccepting of their society, perhaps it
is their devotion to enduring creative values rather the more
aggressive values of so much of present or recent culture. This
book is written as a tool for these people who are responding to
this conflict of beliefs and values that is referred to as the
third basic change.     It is a change in moralities.

     Consider vertebrate, including mammalian, reproductive
behavior. It is essentially extremely simple. Consider
vertebrate, including even primate, communication and social
behavior. Consider it in comparison to the complexity of human
communication and society. There are similarities, but the
degree of difference in the complexity of the social behaviors
of humans and any other specie is gualitative, not just
quanitative. Biology is conservative. What if progress is too
fast? Is the danger that technology changes too fast? No. It is
that the rituals of socializing, human reproductive behavior,
become too complex. We are really designed for simple social
systems and reproductive strategies. We can adapt to changes in
technology better than we can adapt to changes in reproductive
strategies. Social systems and reproductive behavior must be kept
simple. Just as language has given humans a qualitative new
potential for communication, we have achieved a corrosponding
potential to develop complex concepts of ritual and status as
well as complex technologies. Complex technologies present only
limited potentials for problems. Complicated social behaviors can
damage the society.

Back To Start