More about a better world
¡Humanity First!
I will try to finalize the design of a better world by addressing some issues that were left out last month: how we use the so-called Artificial Intelligence and social engineering; the marginalized; the creators of ethics; and universal virtues and crimes plus the ethics and morality of both individual and groups.
First of all, I would like to remind you that my main contribution to all this, if any, is having realized and explained the two implicit biological laws: our primary purpose or objective of the survival of the species, and broad altruism as the primary means to achieve it. Whatever needs to be done at any given time to fulfill these laws is the responsibility of people wiser, more powerful, and more holy than I am.
I am speaking and writing about such different better world, and about the actions to be taken, so that the two basic laws can be better understood and their enormous importance and usefulness would be appreciated, with the hope that my ideas about what we need to do can help resolving our pending problems in some way.
With this first warning, I will summarize five elements of the Better World that complement the four To-DO from last month.
5. Social Engineering and the so-called Artificial Intelligence
The term "social engineering" is often used to refer to malpractice designed to induce undesirable purchases or actions for the benefit of "social engineers" or their employers. I'm not referring to this social engineering.
On page 100 of Surviving by Loving I address these issues and quote Popper, who believes that social engineering…
…includes social activities, both private and public, that, in order to achieve some end or goal, consciously use all available technological knowledge (1).
Social engineering can be good or bad depending on the goal pursued and the means used.
With current knowledge and available technical means, it is easy to change beliefs in any human community: through television, cinema, social media, the Internet, etc. We have multiple examples of the major changes that have occurred in the last 50 years, both in sexual morality and in many other customs and habits due to the successful social engineering of those in power.
Furthermore, the growing development of so-called Artificial Intelligence represents an enormous capacity to obtain, store, and use information of all kinds, making it increasingly easier to influence groups of different cultures, and even all human beings if a central power dominates the system.
These tools are essential for building and maintaining a better world, since those who wield them will direct the life and evolution of humanity.
6. The marginalized
On page 77 of the Human Life Report, I consider the poor, displaced, and conflict-affected to be marginalized, as well as countries with problematic relations, both internally and with other countries. I will summarize the current situation of these serious problems, which should be milder in a better world.
a) The poor
The 2024 edition of the UN-Oxford University Multidimensional Poverty Index report notes that 1.1 billion people worldwide live in extreme poverty, 40% of whom live in countries experiencing war, fragility, and/or limited peace, according to at least one of the three most widely used data sets for measuring conflict situations.
b) The displaced
According to UNHCR, at the end of 2023, 117.3 million people were forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations, and other events seriously disrupting public order. Based on its operational data, UNHCR estimates that forced displacement continued to increase in the first four months of 2024; in fact, by the end of April 2024, the number exceeded 120 million people.
c) Conflict countries
I think countries that are at war, either internally or with their neighbors, can be considered conflict-ridden. According to Wikipedia, as of March 2025, there are 42 ongoing wars.
The most important, ordered by number of deaths: Russian -Ukrainian, Arab-Israeli conflict, insurgency in the Maghreb affecting 15 countries, war in Burma, conflicts in Sudan and Ethiopia, drug trafficking in Mexico, wars in Syria and Somalia, conflicts in Haiti, Congo, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Colombia, Cameroon, Yemen, Iraq, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.
d) Some ideas about the marginalized
Most of the existing poor were born poor and will remain poor all their lives. And they will have many poor children because the poorest tend to have more children than the least poor. It is clear that a solution for fewer poor people means fewer people are born poor. This is what has happened in Western countries over the last eighty years or so.
Since the post-World War II era, confirmed in the 1974 Kissinger Report , Western countries have seen their production and consumption of goods and services increase, while birth rates have decreased. Most people find themselves in a situation where sexuality has been separated from reproduction. Furthermore, they must choose between greater well-being and having children. The result is replacement fertility rates of fewer than two children per woman. In return, they consume more goods and services and likely produce the same or worse pollution. But that's another issue. The one we're dealing with now is reducing the number of poor people.
Additional data:
More than half of the 1.1 billion poor people are children under 18 (584 million). Worldwide, 27.9% of children live in poverty. According to UNHCR, approximately 8,500 children die every day from malnutrition.
455 million poor people around the world live in countries prone to conflict, which hinders and even reverses progress made in poverty reduction.
The chart included in the March post lists China, India, Indonesia , Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh as the most populous countries. The Chinese government says poverty no longer exists in China. Estimates for the rest of the world show about 500 million poor people, almost half the world's population. In India, the number is estimated at 296 million.
e) Possible solutions for a better world
The problems mentioned above can be solved by applying several measures from the March post:
The World Authority would have the capacity to end conflicts and wars, thereby reducing poverty and the number of displaced persons in these countries.
Applying the responsible parenthood approach outlined in point 3a of the March article , if the countries with the poorest populations in these groups were to move to replacement fertility rates of 2 or less (*), poverty would be eliminated, or nearly eliminated, in fifteen or twenty years. Especially child poverty, which accounts for a painful majority of the world's poor. And a huge factory of even more poor people. (*) In Spain, we were at 1.12 children per woman in 2023.
Managing existing marginalized groups and countries so that they assume and exercise their duties as human beings is easy if you have the power to do so.
Apply part of the savings generated by the reduction of military spending and unnecessary goods to aid the poor who exist during the process and to the residual ones.
7. The creators of ethics
As I have said repeatedly, it will not be possible to build the Better World I am drawing by good means if the universal ethical principle is not adopted, that is, if the creators of ethics do not assume and exercise that whatever is good/better for the survival of humanity is good/better, and altruism/love as the main means to practice it.
Almost from the beginning of human history, and even now, we can distinguish three groups of ethical creators: the thinkers, the religions, and those in power, including the sovereign people.
I recall that, as I mentioned in Chapter 5 of the Report on Human Life, ethics has two parts: meta-ethics, which defines the Good or purpose to be achieved, and normative ethics, which governs the moral norms that regulate behavior to follow in order to achieve the Good. The universal ethical principle belongs to meta-ethics and is what I discuss in this section. Normative ethics serves as a guide for actions in different settings and times: for what I call applications in these posts. I comment on the meta-ethics currently in force:
a) From the thinkers, we have mainly Western meta-ethics: Aristotle's happiness or eudaemonism, Kant's moral law and practical reason, and utilitarians' well-being. These are good but incomplete meta-ethics.
b) The most influential religions are the three religions of the Book, with meta-ethics whose supreme Good lies in the afterlife. The remaining religions and wisdoms have different ends, transcendent or earthly.
c) Those in power usually consider continuing to command as a meta-ethical good. It is assumed that, if they are honest, they do so to achieve the goods of a) and b) or other goods they consider best at any given time: for themselves and for their collectives.
From what I've seen over the years, it seems that, for the moment, none of the three groups like the universal ethical principle:
To secular thinkers because they believe they can know what the Good is through human reason alone and refuse to allow anyone external to define it, neither Nature nor God. So far, they have not been able to determine what the universal Good is, and, as I have said, they continue to use partial meta-ethics from the various philosophical doctrines in force, seeking to ground ethics or deeming it impossible to do so.
To believers because they already have a transcendent good. Earthly goods differ according to religions and beliefs.
To those in power because the universal ethical principle prevents or makes it difficult for them to justify some of the normative ethics that serve their interests.
My hope: I am confident that what I say in my books and articles, or what others wiser than I say, will convince some people in the three groups mentioned that the two basic laws and the universal ethical principle are certain, binding, and good truths for everyone, namely:
a) They are good for thinkers because they are in accordance with reason and discover a certain and universal Good that frames and contains the various partial goods: happiness, Kant's moral law and the well-being of utilitarians.
b) They are good for believers because the good that the universal ethical principle proposes is an earthly human good, prior to the transcendent Good, and based on an ethic based on the natural law of Creation dictated by the Creator, and which is the means to try to achieve eternal Life.
c) They are good for those in power because they are also human beings, and these laws are binding on all. Furthermore, if the A and B groups embrace them, the people will do so as well, forcing those in power to follow them.
Another, worse but possible option, is the implementation, by fair means or foul, of a world government that acts in its own interest and with its own meta-ethics, without embracing the universal ethical principle. With this, humanity would move towards a model more similar to Huxley's Brave New World, where a minority manages humans in layers or strata. Humans who live happily following a purely materialistic ethic and morality.
Although there is always hope that, as long as it does not become extinct, humanity will evolve toward a transcendent purpose, which today we still do not know with scientific certainty, but which seems plausible if altruism/love continues to grow.
8. Universal virtues and crimes against humanity
In a Better World, the universal ethical principle must be clear and permanent:
As living beings, the purpose of humans is the survival of our species or humanity, which means that whatever is good and best for this purpose or objective is good/better. With altruism/love as the primary means. And naturally, whatever is bad for this purpose is bad.
It seems that in a better world, there must be a list of universal virtues and values that would be those most conducive to achieving survival goals with altruism/love. They can be adapted to the circumstances of each moment, but it seems that some will be permanent. I've consulted some lists, and they highlight love, solidarity, honesty, hard work, cooperation, personal austerity, and so on.
There would also be a list of crimes or offenses for behaviors that most seriously threaten global survival and well-being. Crimes that affect the habitat and other living beings, coexistence between individuals or groups, destruction or waste of property, and bad example and misconduct by leaders seem clear.
As I mentioned in point 3.15 of the article on Human Present and Future , except in severe and repeated cases, sanctions against individuals would be more moral than material. Publicizing the offense and the subsequent social sanction brought about by prior collective awareness might be sufficient. This is easy to achieve with current social engineering media and techniques.
China appears to be successfully implementing its social credit system, which was launched just a few years ago. It has been well received by citizens. The question remains about the means of control and its use, but the method seems valid.
The list of crimes and misdemeanors and their penalties could be drawn up by the authorities of each country or cultural group, under the direction and supervision of the World Ethics Council.
Common note for many of the ideas presented in the previous points
It is possible that some readers might feel that these ideas restrict human freedom and attempt to direct and manipulate their consciences. This is true. For if the validly established universal virtues are not promoted, or if universally evil acts are not declared evil, sins will be promoted and virtues will be hidden according to the partial interests of individuals or groups. As is often the case today.
9. Individual and group ethics and morality
I insist that to build a better world through good means, it is essential that human beings, especially wise men and leaders, see and embrace the ethical principles resulting from the laws of human survival and altruism/love. It is about these ideas being known, embraced, and practiced at three levels:
a) Individual. The idea is that all people, from conception, are humanity, are human beings. They then have or acquire different attributes: they are white or black, American or Chinese, believers or atheists, rich or poor… But all have the same dignity and the same basic rights and duties because of their belonging to humanity, not because of their other contingent circumstances.
And all humans implicitly believe in humanity. But although this belonging and the imperative it entails are inherent in our genome, humans act according to their inherited neuroethics and acquired group morality. That is, each person normally tends to behave according to the norms of the groups they come from and those acquired throughout their lives. And this has yielded positive overall results so far, despite the problems of hunger, war, and so on that have existed throughout our history.
With the recent existential risks threatening humanity, it is urgent and essential that humans "see" and accept their basic nature and purpose and act primarily as human beings, before or at the same time as Chinese or Americans, believers or atheists, rich or poor...
b) Group. All human groups are made up of human beings and are part of humanity. It would be helpful if groups, as such, also saw and accepted this truth, adapted their moral codes to it, and acted accordingly. The sooner the better.
For example, universities could even include the term "human" in their name to always keep it in mind, e.g. , "Human University" [Autonomous or Complutense, etc.] Including as their first objective in their statutes the pursuit of the survival and well-being of humanity and trying to achieve it, and acting as "sisters" of other universities, entities and organizations around the world; and striving to be the best possible in their field: for their satisfaction and to serve the basic objectives.
And the same applies to all organizations and entities, large and small, secular and religious, civil and military. For example: neighborhood communities: Human Community of… ; banks: Human Credit Bank of…; police forces: Human Police of [Madrid… ], religions: Human Mosque of …;Human Parish of…
As far as I know, the Catholic Church, living up to its name, is the institution that, in its earthly meta-ethics , most takes humanity into account, especially with the latest Popes. In the encyclical Laudato si', Pope Francis addresses in point 3: "every person who inhabits this planet ." And in point 164 he speaks of " the tendency to conceive of the planet as a homeland and of humanity as a people who inhabit a home belonging to all". In point 96 of Fratelli tutti he speaks of " the awareness that all the nations of the earth (...) share a common destiny " and of: "the vocation to form a community composed of brothers and sisters who welcome and care for one another ".
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Chinese president, the UN, and other individuals and entities of all kinds increasingly speak, either tacitly or explicitly, of humanity as a subject, both active and an "organism" to be cared for. And there is a growing awareness that all human beings are part of a single, singular system whose primary objective is their own survival. And to achieve this, it is essential that humans enjoy the greatest possible well-being, with altruism/love as a means to both ends.
c) Global. As I say, with the globalization of information and the awareness of serious global problems, many people and various groups have been realizing and accepting their belonging to humanity and what this can mean, for better or worse, for some time now: scientists, environmentalists, the UN, religious leaders, various pro-humanity movements, etc. This trend is growing, and in a few years, it could happen that, by good means, top leaders will accept the basic objective and act accordingly with a global vision. But it could happen that this action/reaction is slower than the worsening of the problems, leading to natural disasters, pandemics, famines, world wars, etc.
It seems fitting that current world leaders see and embrace as soon as possible the basic law of survival and the imperative duty this entails for everyone, especially those with the power and means to act as human beings. For everyone, but especially for the wisest and most powerful, seeing and acting as best as possible in this matter is their primary obligation.
And at these levels, the principle of intelligent altruistic selfishness also applies. Acting in pursuit of the survival and well-being of humanity is also good for those who practice it.
d) Humanity First
In the case of the two current major powers, President Trump and his team may have American First as their mottos, and Made America Great Again. But assuming that those Americas are human Americas, they are part of humanity, they are humanity. And it's good that America tries to be the first and best part of humanity: for its own good and for the rest of humanity.
The more and better America is, within the basic laws, the more and better the relationship of coexistence and mutual aid suitable for all: without wars, without weapons, without tariffs, without internal poverty, without discrimination… with only the natural inequalities that exist between peoples, cultures, and personal abilities. With individual freedom to live as each one wants and can, working more or less in some things or others and accepting the consequences with grace.
Trump and his team should see and accept that, first and foremost, they are human beings, and that being American is a contingency, both historical and individual. And that they can continue to be the richest people in the world. And that their children and grandchildren, since they will be fewer, will have more, without problems of violence or discrimination, etc. And Trump would go down in world history as the great peacemaker and the great revolutionary he seems to aspire to be.
And I say the same to President Xi Jinping and his National People's Congress: Keep working to eradicate poverty in your vast country. Ease overcrowded spaces. Try to avoid inequalities among your citizens and the spending on weapons and armies. Keep seeking the greatest well-being for your country. For you , with your political system and your social engineering, it's easy to convince your fellow citizens to embrace the universal ethical principle. And thus you can have a country of free citizens, with the same goal of survival and well-being for themselves and all humans, with altruism/love as their means.
If the two presidents and their teams see and embrace their human nature, with the same goals and the same ethical principles to pursue them, they will be able to easily agree on technical issues that benefit each of their countries and humanity. And the rest of the countries will gradually join this alliance, for the benefit of both sides.
10. Appendix. Possible extraterrestrial habitable spaces
I assume that space exploration will continue in the coming years, one of whose goals would be to create permanent stations or find habitable satellites or other planets, both in the solar system and extrasolar ones , where human life could be established. This will have several objectives, including the survival of human life in the event that it cannot survive on Earth. Spaces or bunkers will also continue to be built to serve as shelter for humans if all the above fails.
Grades
(1) Karl R. Popper. The Poverty of Historicism. Madrid, 2008.