Naturalism and the Goal of Humanity
Monday and Sunday discuss Naturalism, the goal of Humanity, and "well-being" of Humanity.
MONDAY: "Naturalism", in an ethical sense, is the position that we should define good or bad based on our observations of nature. If something is "natural", it is good. If it is "unnatural", it is bad. Following nature is looked at as the best way to direct one's life, society, etc. The most prominent historical example of this is philosophical Daoism. Daoism conceives of nature as arising from a principle known as the "Dao" or the "Way". This Dao is an impersonal force, but ultimately benefic. The Daoist seeks to observe nature from a position of non-judgment and quietness, then regulate his or her actions based on how nature behaves. For example, the Daoist sees nature as acting passively towards its productions, yet also sees that its productions flourish. Nature isn't constantly interfering with things to "set them right". The harmony, or balance, is allowed to progress naturally, without interference. The Daoist then seeks to model themselves after this. Hence the concept of "wu wei" or "non-doing". Rather than interfere, the Daoist seeks to let things proceed naturally and spontaneously. This, they think, gives the best outcome. Other examples of naturalism would be anarcho-primitivism. To quote ChatGPT: "Anarcho-primitivism is a political ideology that advocates for a return to a simpler, pre-industrial way of life, based on a hunter-gatherer model of human society. It argues that civilization and technological progress have caused environmental degradation, social inequality, and alienation from nature, and that the solution to these problems lies in dismantling industrial society and returning to a more primitive way of life. Anarcho-primitivists reject many aspects of modern civilization, including the use of fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, urbanization, and mass production. They believe that these things are incompatible with a sustainable, harmonious relationship between humans and the natural world. Instead, they advocate for a decentralized, small-scale society that is more in tune with the rhythms of nature." There's two questions that come to mind when looking at ideas like these: 1) if they're accurate and 2) what leads people to these positions.
SUNDAY:
To me, the question of whether they are accurate or not, and why people are attracted to them, lies with the question of what the goal of Humanity is. Are we to transcend and move past nature, or harmonize with it and become the best we can possibly be? Alternatively, is nature a stepping stone for Humanity or something we must have a symbiotic relationship with?
So I don’t think any position is more or less accurate at their extremes. In fact, they can become paradoxical. Humanity as it is is a product of nature, no? So…continuing to be Human, to push the extremes of modern civilization, to extinction or not…isn’t that nature?
MONDAY:
The question I would ask here is if humanity truly had a goal or not. When I look at the different ideologies in the world, I can't say that there is a unified goal for humanity in that sense. Wahhabism, for example, wouldn't envision the same future that the Chinese Communist Party would. So what constitutes the ultimate "goal" of humanity, in that case? We could say that there are more fundamental values underlying ideology, though. For example, humans generally want to survive and want humanity to survive. They also want to survive under conditions of "well-being." Though "well-being" is framed in different ways, it does generally imply the fulfillment of goals and values with a minimum of pain and healthy maximum of pleasure. Are we calling this the goal of humanity? In that case, what happens when these threefold goals come into conflict? To survive, we need to leave the planet eventually. There's no way that can happen in an anarcho-primitivist ideology. So it's very clear that anarcho-primitivism is a death sentence for humanity. We might die anyway, but anarcho-primitivism isn't even going to try extend human survival beyond the survival of earth. They might say, though, that values and well-being are more important than survival. What if humanity's extended survival could only occur in a painful dystopian setting? What if the tech required that? Is that "preferable" to just being happy cave-people and dying out eventually?
SUNDAY:
Whether Humanity has a goal or not is in the eye of the beholder, in my view. It’s akin to the question of whether there’s meaning to life overall, or if there’s a deity at all. It informs how groups act. If you have a different goal in mind, your actions will thus be different. Just as what you do to achieve “well-being”, well, depends on what “well-being” is.
The definition/implication of "well-being” that you described makes sense. It, of course, depends on whether we agree on what pain and pleasure is, but there’s always a deeper definition required in such discussions.
I don’t necessary agree with Humanity’s survival in the long-term to require us to leave the Earth. We could set a “goal” for ourselves to be able to support any population without actually leaving the planet. And to keep the Sun going. Or what not. Sure, spreading out is the easiest way forward, but if we allow ourselves to dip into sci-fi concepts…there’s other paths. But I agree with your overall point: to survive for the long haul, we have to adapt, and staying in the cave doesn’t give us that.
This goes back to why Naturalism doesn’t make any sense to me. The goal of species in nature is to survive and propagate. Humanity has just found very advanced means of doing that and continues to do so—and will need to do so. So eschewing technology, the yields of our intelligence, seems…unnatural. Tool making is natural. Humans just have the most sophisticated tools.
The idea of survival being tied to dystopia is interesting. This is where I feel like the idea of a “goal” for Humanity is like…Survival+. The idea survival situation, not just…being alive. So a basic standard of life. A balance. So we can survive at lower numbers with better quality or something like that is superior than higher numbers at lower quality.
But what is “ideal” for Humanity is basically an opinion. It’s a belief. So…I suppose it’s no wonder there are all sorts of beliefs about what Humanity ought to be like—Humans themselves are varied.
What do you think of Naturalism and the goal of Humanity?