AshDiane Hunt, thank you for your reply. You stated:
"Myself, I think there's something missing there that is not only the fundamental reason why we humans have such difficulties co-operating but Is also the solution.
That missing piece is the reason why we are able to discuss these things in the first place. It's the life our planet gives us.
We not only need to co-exist with each other but with the life all around us which has become scenery and resource to be taken to many as well as taken for granted, in the linear unsustainable 'take, make, dispose' system, which is prominent in much of the world, and which externalized its true costs."
I don't understand why you believe that what you have described is missing from what I am proposing, so perhaps I am missing something. But this is my tentative response:
I absolutely agree with all that you say about our destructive way of living on the planet, and how that needs to change. And what I am proposing speaks to that issue, and even provides a new tool for that very purpose.
What you are saying is that we should do differently than what we have been doing. "Should" refers to our ethical beliefs, our beliefs about what we should and should not do. We could say that a person's basic ethical philosophy is the collection of all of that person's ethical principles (beliefs about what we should try to aim for) and rules of conduct (beliefs about the usually best kind of way that we should respond to certain kinds of situations).
We well know that most of us do not have a very well constructed and effective basic ethical philosophy. One reason for its lack of effectiveness is the lack of clear awareness that others in our group believe the same, the exception being individuals in closed groups such as cults or theocracies (that often have rather destructive ethical philosophies produced in part by the unfortunate, destructive parts of ourselves).
What we humans need is for all of us to work together on a basic ethical philosophy for our species, and that means that we need to have a way of knowing to what we agree and to what we don't agree, and then the capability of working together on what we don't agree on, so that we can work toward further agreement. That ability is exactly what the Humanian Belief Manual and its related Forum allows for us.
For instance, you can (without cost, and from your own home) register in the Belief Manual and construct your own Belief Manual while comparing it with that of any or all others doing the same, and you can enter into detailed discussion about differences in such beliefs in the related Forum. And there is an outline heading in the Belief Manual for you to place the very beliefs that you are advocating for, having to do with our relationship to other species and our care of our planet.
Could you visit https://humanianity.com and learn about the effort there (especially the Humanian Belief Manual), and then give me feedback as to whether you really do still find something missing? Ideally, you could participate, and we could compare our Belief Manuals and discuss in much more specific detail anything that we seem to have difference of opinion about, and we can be joined by anyone else in the world who wishes to participate. This effort, this new tool (the Humanian Belief Manual), is still a newborn.
The question yet to be answered is whether we humans really are able to work together in that way, as opposed to what we have always done, just contributed to a vast collection of statements in partial agreement/disagreement with each other (and then either going our separate ways or going to war, or the smaller equivalent of such). As a species we have much work to do.
Bill
