Here is a paper I wrote for Philosophy of Human Nature a bunch of years ago. One of these days I am going to edit it and revise it because I like the theory, but I have trouble with some of it now. I generally believe it, but there are definitely some things that need work.

Philosophy of Human Nature
Professor Waligore

My theory of human nature is still in the process of development; however, it will be in development for as long as I am alive. I believe my current theory is a simple one, but I do not expect others to believe it. I do not expect this because part of my theory is people must choose their own paths and discover human nature for themselves.

One of the most annoying theories of human nature I have come across seems to be the Christian theory, because it entails spreading itself as part of the theory. This is evident from class discussions everyday. I believe humans must choose their own paths, and discover from life what they wish to of their own free will. This process of self-discovery affirms beliefs one discovers and holds, and strengthens one’s ethics.

One of the initial topics I should discuss is my belief that there is no soul or spirit. The belief in a soul is key to many religions, as the basis of many Western religions is salvation of the soul. It is mostly for these beliefs in salvation that I do not believe in a soul or spirit. A belief in salvation often leads to an externally dictated morality, which one must hold in order to get into the afterlife. I believe morals need to be self-created; otherwise, there is no hope for a full-hearted belief in them. If a moral held by someone is not going to be followed voluntarily, then it is not something important to believe in.

I hold a belief that humans need no outside father figure, because we need no one to judge our actions other than our society and ourselves. If something a person is doing is wrong according to community standards, then this is something that needs to stop. I believe humans are neither inherently bad nor good, and that society socializes humans to be a certain way. In a few cases, such as diseases causing a lack of ethical consideration, there are humans who are inherently bad according to community standards no matter how raising occurs with them.

The term community needs definition before I go any further, as I believe in a certain use of this term. My definition of community is a group of individuals living together, in a manner that is in harmony with the environment. As I will show later, current society is not a community and hence has no bearing on the decisions of individual morality, according to my definition of morality.

Although I do not believe there is a soul or spirit, I do believe an energy is inherent in everything. This energy is a way to tie together everything living, something that everything living has. When we are born, we are born with energy from the system. Think of the energy as a lake where the water is the energy and is scooped into someone when they are born. We never use up this energy and when we die, the energy is reverted back to the system. Everything living has part of this energy, and will return it to the system when they die. I will introduce one of the problems I have with this part of the theory right now; this problem being that if we use the term system, it complicates the theory significantly. However, if the term Earth is used then this negates any possibility of beings living off the planet, which is not something I would like to concede.

There is a term I will attempt to define; however, I do not believe I will in anyway succeed in doing so. The definition of what is alive may not be the same to all people. I would like to use the definition of alive, as something that is self-regulating. This same definition is often applied by James Lovelock’s Gaia theory to define what life is. By this definition, the Earth is also considered alive. This is something I would like to allow, as I believe all life on this planet helps the planet as a whole to survive and regulate itself.

I am not entirely sure if this energy is finite or infinite. I am leaning towards this energy being finite, and this brings up the argument of when will it run out? I do not believe a finite energy supply of this sort limits the number of living beings in the universe, because as more of the energy is in demand, then each living being gets less and less. This causes problems, as I believe that as the amount of energy spreads thinner there tends to be more suffering in the world.

This increase in suffer is not because of the less energy everything receives directly, but it is due to the increased number of living things on the planet. The energy can simply be used as an indicator, when it reaches a certain level there are too many living beings on the planet.

I believe people are mentally, spiritually, and socially happy when they are in harmony with the environment around them. Current society is like a parasite, sucking everything from the environment around them. Society has no respect for living harmoniously with nature, or living harmoniously with itself. This is very similar to the New Age theory, as is much of my personal theory. Similar to the New Agers, I believe we need to become less consumer oriented and wasteful; these are in the way of connecting with nature, as well as other human beings.

According to my view of Human Nature, individuals in society are not suffering such as many existentialists and romantics believe; however, they are not living up to their ability to be fully happy and healthy. Those individuals who have chosen to live in harmony with the environment are the most happy and healthy, and they are among the few recognizing society as not in this state of healthiness. Those not in this harmonious state are likely not to recognize there is a chance for greater happiness elsewhere.

In order to solve the problems of human nature with my view, it would require a revertation back to a state of harmony both with the environment and inter-societally. Although I believe there exists other ways to do this, the only method I can see currently is an almost back step to an agrarian life-style. Small communities of people living communally for the purpose of survival seem to be the most harmonious way of life I see. This does not mean a rejection of all the current societal comforts like computers and cars; it simply means a reduction of the demand we place on our environment. A large and eventual absolute reduction in fossil fuels needs to occur, which is accomplishable with a gradual switch to solar technologies.

A revertation to communal farming and living would require a great reduction in the human population. This is necessary no matter what, because we have overshot the Earth’s carrying capacity with our reliance on fossil fuels and destructive land management. Eventually society will reach a point where we will no longer be able to continue our destructive lifestyles and need to find another means of living. This will likely occur when the air is so polluted no one can breathe, and all our trash has nowhere to go.

A crash will also occur when we run out of fossil fuels and suddenly do not have enough energy to grow, transport, or produce food, clothing, or anything else. Society suffers from something known as cargoism, which is defined as the delusion that technology will always save us from overshoot, which is defined as growth beyond an area’s carrying capacity. Society’s consumer driven lifestyle has left people with the delusion that technology and further separation from the environment will always be the solution to any problems. There has been a blinding by material comforts to believe this material world is the only solution to problems that exist.

The small communities I prescribe would have populations of fewer than 100 people, and I would hope less than even 50. The ideal population would be around 20 or so, but I do not believe larger communities are in conflict with my theory. The focus would not be entirely on farming practices, but a mix of occupations. Much like how not everyone in the world farms their food now, not everyone in the society would need to focus on farming for their food. There could be specialization of labor to a small extent, but still a general knowledge of others occupations.

Much of my theory has emphasis on self-sufficiency. I believe everyone should be able to become self-sufficient if forced to, and that current society does not allow this. In these communities, everyone would have working knowledge of how everything operates, even if this knowledge is in the most general of form. There would need to be a shift of emphasis to mechanical and agrarian skills, from many of the business and white-collar skills common in today’s society.

The educational system, which is currently flawed, would play a role in this. Our current educational system focuses on keeping children out of the labor market, providing day care for children, and teaching them the dominant societal paradigms. In aboriginal societies, education does not occur in any formal context; but aboriginals who enter adulthood could, if so wished, become their own one-person tribe absolutely separate from any other human contact. Very few Americans could do this, even after more than twice the education that aboriginals receive.

There are problems that can be presented against my philosophy, but the reason many of these are given is because the person thinking about the problem is often stuck thinking in the technological and materialistic viewpoint and refuses to look at other ways of operating. I can see people thinking that moving back to an agrarian lifestyle as too complex and hard work, and by moving back we would be giving up all the progress we have made.

To counter this argument, I would say that these people have not looked at the bigger picture of life and the state of the world. They are also being selfish, believing their way, the current way, is the only way to live. Humans do not like change, and so this argument is presented because radical change is not seen as good or wanted. I still believe progress can be made, but it must be made in a manner that is not going to adversely affect the environment. Moving to this new form of living can be seen as a step forward and all of our “progress” can be brought with us.

In order to continue living on this planet, we need to pay with hard work. The discovery of fossil fuels to power steam engines was the beginning of the time when many people started to relax and stop performing hard work in order to survive. I believe there needs to be a new paradigm where hard work is seen as necessary for survival. By hard work, I mean physical labor of the sort related to farming, building, or fixing, not by working 60 hours a week, or working 12-hour days behind a computer or desk.

Another argument I often see presented, is how do we reduce the population of the planet. I believe in total non-violence and a connection with nature that does not harm it unnecessarily. Taking from nature only what is needed and limiting waste as much as possible

Therefore, I do not believe we should simply kill off billions of people. I believe that over time, the population must be brought under control, and couples only having one or no children can accomplish this. This is a problem in current society, because there are some religions that believe many children are a necessity. My response to this is that these religions are out of date, and do not take a look at current societal needs and problems. An argument brought up might be that they are my children, and I should decide how many I could have, as I am the only person who has to take care of them. This is not the case, as the Earth is ultimately what will need to take care of them and she is getting to the point where she cannot do this.

Unlike some theories of human nature, I do not believe mine is the next step in some societal evolution. I believe it is one that needs to be discovered in order for the survival of the species without massive die offs eventually due to the destruction we are causing the planet. A majority of the population needs to look at their world, discover something similar to this theory, and choose to actively believe in it and enact it.