People everywhere have been trying to figure out the meaning of life since long before the beginning of recorded history. Lots of people have come up with lots of different explanations that seemed like good ideas at the time, many of which still work fairly well to this day. However, despite the fact that every group of humans in the world has come up with meanings to their human lives, and thereby come up with equally valid answers to the same question, people of different cultures continue to argue over whose version of the answer is right.
So here?s the very first lesson in spiritual logic: All humans belong to the same species. One way or another, all humans place the same value on their own lives (yes, even suicidal people, people with terminal illnesses, and parents who sacrifice themselves to protect their children, these people just measure the value of their lives differently from most people, as I explain elsewhere). All humans have abilities to use to satisfy themselves with their lives. All humans always figure out how to make use of their available resources. As a result, in any contained system, one way or another all humans always find a way to satisfy themselves with their lives. That doesn?t mean that everyone always feels happy with their immediate circumstances on the most superficial level, but it does mean that everyone always feels satisfied at the most fundamental level that they?re making the best of their situation?even if they don?t realize it.
If x = the answer to human life, x = y and y = z, then x, y, and z are all the answer to human life. The values of x, y, and z are all the same. The only differences between them are purely aesthetic, and those aesthetic differences are what the people of different cultures keep fighting each other over.
Of course, in an age of global telecommunications, truly self-contained societies can only be studied by archeologists anymore, and the closest things to self-contained societies left in the world now can only be studied by intrepid anthropologists who venture out into the wilds of Africa, South America, southeast Asia, and some Pacific islands. If you?re reading this book, you don?t belong to a truly self-contained society, simply because I don?t belong to a truly self-contained society, and you?re reading my book. But one way or another we all will belong to a self-contained society eventually, because we have no other choice. Our planet is only so just large and there?s no way for anyone to move off it permanently yet.
If we are ever to build a single, sustainable global civilization, then in the end there can be only one culturally accepted answer to the meaning of life. In order for us to form the one sustainable global culture, we will have to agree on the one most fundamental thing that makes human beings what they are. As long as people disagree on that answer, they won?t be able to form one culture where everyone can find the one most important thing they?re looking for. As long as people can?t find that answer in the one culture, they?re going to leave that culture, and it?s going to cease to be one culture.
Cultural globalization through military conquest has proven disastrous time and again. Cultural globalization through cultural imperialism is much more popular now, but is still driving other cultures toward extinction. Every culture on Earth has good qualities, but if the one dominant culture of the world succeeds in turning everyone into Americans, the good qualities of all the other cultures will be lost. In the face of this unrelenting Western imperialism, the only way for those other cultures to preserve their cultural identities would be to globalize actively and voluntarily first, to create one global culture that will value all of its member cultures, before the one dominant culture globalizes itself on its own terms. If those individual cultures could globalize more efficiently and successfully than the one dominant culture could globalize on its own, then that one (formerly) dominant culture would have no practical alternative left than to join the new global culture. All the individual cultures would have to do would be to figure out what commonalities unite them and build their global culture on that before the one dominant culture could build it on Western economic imperialism.
Because all humans of all cultures belong to the same human race, there can be only one answer to human life, but there is a virtually infinite number of ways to arrive at that answer. That distinction between the answer and the means of finding it is the difference that just made every political correctness advocate who read the phrase ?there can be only one answer? say something to the effect of ?What are you, a fascist? Everyone has to find their own answer to life!? Oh, please. If you find an answer to life that you like and another person finds an answer to life that they like, you?ve both found the same damn thing, which is an answer to life that each of you is satisfied with. If both of you are too blind to see that, don?t blame me for it. If you?re so caught up in the aesthetic differences between your individual versions of the same answer that you can?t see they?re the exact same thing, don?t accuse me of being a fascist! That?s exactly the problem with the world that I?ve come here to straighten out, because that?s exactly the problem that?s holding individuals and cultures apart.
If you still have a problem with the phrase ?there can be only one answer,? you are part of the reason I have to write this book. Respecting the differences between each person?s answer to life is not the same thing as recognizing the equal value of each person?s answer to life. Am I debating whether a glass is half full or half empty? Maybe. But I prefer to think of it as an echo of the supreme court?s ruling in Brown vs. The Board of Education: ?Separate is not equal?.
Why would people fight over letters that all represent the same value? Because even to this day, the people of each culture generally approach members of other cultures with the assumption that their own culture is right, and the people of the other cultures just don?t know enough to be able to see that. Well I?ve got news for you ladies and gentlemen: The other people value their lives every bit as much as you value yours, and the only reason you can?t see how they could value their way of life as much as you value yours is because you don?t understand their way of life well enough to know any better. Isn?t that interesting?
Here?s the second lesson of spiritual logic: Human behavior appears chaotic at first glance, but as people who have been studying chaotic systems in recent years have discovered, even chaos has rules of its own. Two basic principles of chaos study prove very valuable in understanding human behavior. First of all, many seemingly chaotic systems are caused by the interaction of numerous simple systems. Second, in seemingly chaotic systems patterns can repeat themselves on different scales.
Another critical component of my search has been the fact that people have been trying to explain human behavior in various ways from long before the beginning of recorded history. That means that over the course of history people have come up with a lot of combinations of constants and variables to arrive at the same answer. All that leaves for me to do is to assemble as many of those equations as I can find and apply the principles of chaos and the constants of evolution to find and solve for variables in these collected equations.
That first principle of chaos works somewhat more complicatedly than I?ll explain it here?which is why there?s an entire book following this introduction. Looking at the different cultures of the world, two things are obvious. One is that all cultures are made up of human beings who are evolutionarily equal. The other is that the resources available to each culture are different. There we have one constant and one variable to work with.
For the sake of discussion, let?s back up about five centuries, to October 10th, 1492, the day before the cultural self-containment of the Americas ended forever. Prior to Columbus?s discovery of the New World, the Europeans had discovered a meaning to life that they were satisfied with. The Native Americans had also found a meaning to life that they were satisfied with, which is why their cultures survived instead of disintegrating. There you have an example of the second principle of chaos I gave: these Native American tribal cultures survived for the same reason that one globalized culture would be able to survive, because the people of the cultures could find the one most important thing they were looking for within the culture, which is why they didn?t leave that culture to search for the answer elsewhere.
So far we have defined human life to be a constant value for all human beings, we have identified all humans as being evolutionarily equal, which is another constant, and we have identified a difference in the resources available to the different cultures, which is a variable. That means that all humans have the same evolutionary abilities on the average, they have different amounts of resources to work with, and somehow they combine those things to give their lives equal value. As written, that?s a mathematical impossibility, because you can?t combine one constant with one variable to produce a constant. There must be at least one more variable involved. Let?s call that second variable cultural adaptation to available resources. Now we have equal human abilities combining with differences in resources and differences in cultural adaptation resulting in an equal sense of value for each person to their own life. Aha! Mathematically it works now. Unfortunately, in practice that second variable isn?t nearly as easy to recognize as the first.
Just because we live in the 21st century (by the Gregorian calendar), lets suppose for the sake of discussion that the answer to life is 21, although none of the numbers I use here represent any actual values. As I said before, x = the answer to life and x = y. Suppose that as of October 10th 1492 the Europeans had defined the answer to life as x and the Native Americans had defined it as y. Suppose that both groups had arrived at their answer of 21 through the equation in which a = human ability, b = available resources, and c = cultural adaptation to available resources. A is a constant, so we will assign it a value if 1. Suppose for the Europeans b = 6 but the Native Americans only had half the resources the Europeans did, so for them b = 3. That means that in order to get abc = x = y, for the Europeans c =3.5 and for the Native Americans c = 7. That means that the Europeans? answer to life is 1 x 6 x 3.5 = 21, while the Native American answer to life is 1 x 3 x 7 = 21.
The Europeans didn?t recognize or appreciate the Native Americans? greater cultural success at adapting their human lives to a lesser amount of available resources (and they probably wouldn?t?ve cared even if they did). The Europeans could only recognize the Native Americans? lesser amount of resources and assumed that their cultural adaptation to their available resources must be equal to their own. Therefore, to the Europeans, the value of the Native Americans? lives was only 1 x 3 x 3.5 = 10.5. Therefore, the Europeans perceived the Native Americans? lives to be worth less than their own, and so they used their advantages in resources to crush the Native Americans? culture.
The Native Americans who assimilated themselves into European culture had to accept lives only valued at 10.5 by that culture, while the Native Americans who accepted life on reservations where the available resources were even less than what they had before might?ve ended up with an equation of 1 x 1 x 7 = 7. Is it any wonder why the Native Americans resented the Europeans bringing their cultural way of life to an end?
If the two cultures could?ve figured out how to combine their best qualities, between them they could?ve come up with an answer to life of 1 x 6 x 7 = 42, but that?s not what happened. However, there?s an invisible culture emerging in the world now, of people who are catching on to all of this, who realize their own lives are worth just as much as anyone else?s, that anyone else?s life is worth just as much as their own, and that different cultures have different qualities to offer. These people don?t want to keep fighting over aesthetic details, don?t want to keep crushing every culture they come into contact with, and many of these people do want to combine the best qualities of all the cultures they can find because they feel like the answer to life should be 42.
Unfortunately, these are the same people who keep insisting that everyone has to find their own answer to life. In spite of their acceptance of each other?s differences in aesthetics?or even because of that acceptance?they are not unified by a common cultural identity. That means that the traditional imperialist cultures can go right on conquering everything in sight, in spite of the fact that an increasing number of individuals oppose them. The traditional imperialists are united by a common cultural identity in a way that the individual anti-imperialists aren?t, which allows them to organize themselves more effectively. Of course, if someone did figure out how to create one unified cultural identity for all the individuals and cultures who wanted to cooperate with each other instead of conquering each other, and who wanted to build that one global culture on what they all have in common, then the days of cultural imperialism would be as good as over, wouldn?t they?
Heh, heh, heh?
If you?re one of those people in the world who just want to be yourself and get along with everyone else in the world, well keep on reading, because today is your lucky day. I don?t think there?s a single idea anywhere in this book that I can say is uniquely mine. You all helped to write this book, I just figured out how to put it into words. I expect that a very large number of you are going to read all the way to the end of this book and feel like you didn?t learn a damn thing from it, because all I did was to tell you a bunch of stuff you already knew. But the difference between you knowing the stuff for yourself and me telling it to you is that in order for me to tell it to you, I have to put it into words. If someone else already knows the same things you do, and I put into words what they already know, that means that now both of you have the same set of words to talk about the things that you both already know. That means you can stop accepting each others? ?differences? now that you can see that on a practical/non-aesthetic level you aren?t so different after all. There?s your cultural identity, there?s the end to your cultural invisibility, and there?s the foundation for your one global culture.
If I just so happened to put all of this into words that came from logic and objective science, that would mean several more things. First of all, the words couldn?t be condemned by any religious group as unfounded heresy. Second, the words couldn?t be condemned by any secular government as either religious ideology or superstition. Third, the words could be taught within the public school system. Fourth, every political candidate in America could be held responsible for being familiar with the words, because after all, they are the words that express important secular ideas that you, their constituents, want to talk about. Fifth, all of the words would have to be recognized in the American legal system. (Of course, whether the American legal system will actually want to listen to them or not is another matter?) Isn?t this fun?
All humans came from the same culture, which is why all humans evolved as the same species?or I could just as easily say that all humans evolved as the same species because they all practiced the same original culture. Literally, to the best ability of the archeological community to determine, every human being alive today is descended from a small group of people who lived in northeastern Africa about 60,000 years ago. As our common ancestors spread out of Africa and through the world their cultures diverged to meet the needs of their habitats. Invariably, anything that any group of people decided to do they must?ve done because it felt the best to them under their circumstances, and all of those feelings were the product of the same evolution.
What else would people do? Go out and do a bunch of things that felt like bad ideas? Individuals might do that, or they might feel that ideas were good that other individuals wouldn?t. But when you talk about collective decisions that have shaped the courses of cultures, no group of people is ever going to make any decision that would conflict with the forces of human evolution under their circumstances. Over the course of history, groups of people have made decisions that seem positively terrible to us of the early 21st century, but at the time those people made those decisions, those decisions seemed to those people to be the best decisions they could make. Ever hear the saying ?Hindsight is always 20/20?? How about ?History is always written by the winners?? There?s plenty of ways you can jump to conclusions that people should?ve known better in making some decision they did. But if you jump to those conclusions, you won?t be able to understand how those people came up with their answer to life, will you?
Now that humans are once again becoming one culture, it?s plain to see that the only solid foundation for a global civilization is a return to the evolutionary foundation of all human culture. This one evolutionary culture of humanity predates all government and religion. The structure of this one culture is written in the genetic makeup of every human being on Earth. By embracing and making active use of our humanity, the culture of conscientious humanity actively and intentionally recreates the conditions of our evolution. We don?t live in the original conditions of our evolution, but all those evolutionary scientists have figured out enough about the conditions of our evolution that by compiling all their discoveries we can determine what basic ideas have made humanity what it is, and we can choose to live that way?hence the term conscientious humanity. By choosing to live in the way that made all humans what they are, we create a culture that includes everyone on Earth by sheer virtue of their membership in the homo sapiens species. There?s your unified, self-contained, sustainable global culture.
To bring all this about would require us to change the entire world, start over again, and get it right this time. That means a revolution. The revolution begins with people believing in themselves, and ends by putting a stop to cultural imperialism. It begins with individuals ceasing to define their lives at the expense of other people, and ends with those individuals expecting world leaders to do the same. No one has to do anything violent, destructive, murderous, or illegal in between. Does that sound like a deal?
If you?re one of the traditional imperialists, you might as well give up now. Feel free to keep reading if you want, and at least you can find out exactly how and why this no-longer-invisible global culture is going to kick your imperial ass. Now that we have a cultural identity to unite us as the one sustainable global culture, we are the dominant culture of the world. Nobody is going to conquer anybody anymore, because we, the new dominant culture of the world, already recognize that everyone in the world who just wants to get along with each other has already earned their place as an equally valuable member of our culture. For you of traditional Western imperialism, you have only two choices left. You can either join us voluntarily, or you can resist us until we assimilate you.
How does it feel, hmm? As they say, what goes around comes around?
Of course, if you?re a traditional imperialist and you keep on reading, you could very well discover that you want to be one of us and you just didn?t realize it until now. I?ve known plenty of good people in my time who practice imperialist traditions, but who only practice the traditions for aesthetic reasons, not for imperialist reasons. These people just want to be themselves and get along with other people, and they happen to belong to cultures of traditional imperialism. If you?re one of those people, you?re more than welcome to join us, and you don?t have to leave your cultural traditions behind, just your imperialist traditions.
The culture of conscientious humanity has no official membership. The culture isn?t even a culture at all in the traditional sense. It is a meta-culture that is based on the recognition of the equal value that each person gives their own life and respects the differences in the ways each person has arrived at that one answer?it is not a culture that continues to be divided by the assumption that each person has come up with a completely different answer. It is a culture that has no political, religious, ideological, geographical, cultural, historical, linguistic, economic, racial, ethnic, sexual, or any other forms of boundaries at all. Anyone can join at any time, so long as they meet five criteria. They must belong to the homo sapiens species (and I?m only saying that for now because currently there aren?t any aliens, artificially intelligent computers, or evolved animals among us that possess equitable intelligence to humans, so at some point even this criteria might have to be adjusted), they must embrace and make active use of their own humanity, they must want to get along with other people, they must respect other people?s aesthetic differences, and they must be willing to do all they can to avoid harming other people accidentally.
Basically, for anybody out there who ever watched Sesame Street as a child, joining the culture of conscientious humanity should not be a stretch. You can just think of conscientious humanity as Sesame Street for adults. Just because the adult world is run by a bunch of lawyers, business executives, and politicians who don?t give a f*ck about being nice to each other and cooperating with each other doesn?t prove that Big Bird, Grover, Cookie Monster, Kermit the Frog, and Bert and Ernie have been lying to everyone all these years, it just proves that the well-dressed, respectable-looking people who make the world go ?round weren?t paying attention.
You can think of me as the Count von Count of the adult world because I love to add up numbers late into the night and then laugh out loud. Any questions?
A, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
People can build civilizations by working together much more efficiently than they can by fighting against each other, simply because cooperation is more productive than conflict. Literally?as I?m sure we all remember from Sesame Street?when two people cooperate, they combine whatever they have, and when they work against each other, they use some of whatever they have to destroy some of what the other person has. Mathematically speaking, it looks like this: If I have 7 of something and you have 5 of something, then together we have 12 of something, or 7 + 5 = 12. On the other hand, if we fight against each other and use what we have to destroy what the other person has, each of us is going to end up with less than what we had before, and we end up with a equation that looks more like 7 ? 5 = 2. If each of us destroys 5 of whatever the other person has, now I only have 2 left of the 7 I started with, and you have 0 left of the 5 you started with.
Regardless of what you think of the political and economic situation of the world as of 2005, 60 years ago it was a lot worse. That?s because by 1945 people all over the world had spent 6 years using whatever they had to destroy whatever other people had. The two major cultures of the world were hell-bent on applying the 7 ? 5 = 2 equation to each other?s soldiers, weapons, airplanes, ships, tanks, fortifications, military installations, airfields, shipyards, roads, bridges, factories, buildings, stockpiles of raw materials, power plants, food supplies, civilians, cities, and everything else they could possibly destroy. As a result, by 1945 much of the world lay in ruins and didn?t even have an economy anymore in the conventional financial sense. Does anybody of 2005 look back fondly on the good ol? days of World War II? I didn?t think so.
The goal of globalization is to construct a single global civilization. Civilizations are made up of human beings. Human beings have evolutionary instincts and immediate feelings that didn?t evolve in a global community. So how do you construct a single global civilization out of people whose natural feelings and immediate instincts don?t apply to life in a global civilization? Simple. Obviously, some type of feelings must apply to the things a single global civilization has to offer, or else nobody would feel like building a single global civilization, would they? So all we have to do is to do what the people of every civilization have always done: we found that civilization on ideas that all of its members can agree with and will be willing to cooperate with. Since we are trying to build a civilization that includes every human being on Earth, obviously we have to found the civilization on ideas that are guaranteed to feel right to every human being on Earth. Obviously, everyone?s natural feelings are the products of human evolution. That means that in order to build a single global civilization, we have to build it on evolution itself. And that brings me right back to the culture of conscientious humanity becoming the new dominant culture of the world.
Are you ready for the (introduction to the) universal code to humanity now? Here it is:
Every human being on Earth has five important genetic traits in common. Two are the instincts that motivate every animal on Earth, and the other three are the abilities that separate humans from animals. The two instincts are survival and reproduction?if those instincts weren?t genetic in every animal on Earth, species wouldn?t survive and couldn?t evolve. The three abilities are the ability to think in the abstract, the ability to perceive time as a dimension, and the ability to communicate abstract ideas to other humans. These three abilities form the basis for human intellect.
All human actions (other than involuntary physiological activities) result from human decisions. No human ever undertakes any action without having decided to undertake it on some level. Decisions can be conscious, completely subconscious, or they can be made for conscious reasons the person doesn?t pay attention to. Regardless of the reason, all human action begins with some mental process.
All humans require energy to live. To waste energy, therefore, contradicts the survival instinct. In order to satisfy the survival instinct as well as possible, all humans must use their energy as efficiently as possible. To do that, all humans make decisions that give them the most favorable ratio of perceivable benefit to effort required.
All humans have human intellect. In order to best satisfy their instincts, all humans must use their human intellect. Therefore, it is instinctive for humans to use their human intellect to satisfy their instincts. Animals? survival and reproductive instincts can only be stimulated by their situations (including their genetic predispositions and their life experiences), but humans have the unique ability to have their instincts stimulated by ideas.
All humans have unique genetic abilities. All humans are driven to use their abilities to their best potential to satisfy their instincts according to the needs of their situation. Because all humans have the abilities to think in the abstract, to perceive time as a dimension, and to communicate ideas with other humans, a part of humans? instincts to use their abilities to best satisfy their instincts includes imagining different situations in which they could use their abilities better. That gives them the ability to try to change their situation to allow them to use their abilities to make the best of a better situation. Any animal (essentially) only has the ability to use their abilities to their best potential within the context of their present situation (of which genetic predispositions and previous experiences are a part).
All human behavior is motivated by human emotions or ?feelings?. All human emotions originate from human instinct combined with human intellect. In any situation, humans feel their instincts and the projection of those instincts into the abstract and/or through time. People act to best satisfy their instincts by best satisfying their emotions. Therefore, emotion and human instinct are synonymous.
The development of agriculture was an evolutionary inevitability. As hunter-gathering humans realized that gatherable food grew out of their refuse dumps, over time their survival instincts and their human intellect caused them to perceive that they could find a more favorable ratio of benefit to effort required by planting food instead of hunting and gathering it, as measured in a very direct proportion of calories of edible food produced to calories of work required to produce that food.
Agriculture and its effects keep changing the world faster and faster?much faster than evolution can keep up with. For approximately the past 10,000 years the people of the dominant cultures of the world have built cultures that felt like the best ideas to them, based on their abilities to continually change their situations to better satisfy their instincts. If people continue to satisfy their immediate and short-term instincts without using their human intellect to consider the long term results, the short-term satisfaction of their instincts is going to spiral out of control. They?re going to keep consuming resources to try to satisfy their instincts, and they?re going to keep changing the world to allow them to consume more resources, until there are no resources left and they?ve had to destroy every other group of people in the world to get to the last of the resources. Gee, does that sound familiar to anybody?
That short-sighted satisfaction of instincts also has two profound effects on children. Children?s brains continue to develop neurological pathways and connections until they?re about 18, which means that over the course of that development children learn new instincts that will become integral parts of their neural physiology and that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. If the children are taught to attach good feelings to the faulty assumptions that the world?s resources are infinite, that they are entitled to consume as many resources as the can, and that their culture is better than everyone else?s, that emotional connection will become a part of their neural physiology?a biological part of their physical bodies. For the rest of their lives, even if those people no longer think those things are literally true they will feel that those things must be true and that any scientific or logical argument to the contrary must be mistaken.
For all of recorded history, the people of the civilized world have realized that acting directly upon their (hunter-gatherer) instincts/emotions causes no end of trouble in their civilizations. In order to try to fix that, parents have taught their children different ways to act responsibly in their civilizations. Some of those ways work, and some of those ways don?t work as well as people think they should. Some of those ways teach children to make new emotional connections that conflict with their natural instincts, so the neurology of those children develops to attach both positive and negative emotions to the same things at the same time. Just for one simple example, how many Americans do you think I?ll offend if I say that for all of human evolution people have greatly enjoyed f*cking? Scientifically it?s true, so why should so many people feel it?s wrong for me to say so?
When these children are turned loose into civilization as adults, the problems they?ll create are just going to keep multiplying. First, they?ll take it for granted that their culture is better than everyone else?s and that they are entitled to as many resources as they can consume, no matter what anyone says to try to convince them otherwise. Of course, since a lot of these children have learned instincts that conflict with their natural instincts, by the time they?re adults there is no way to satisfy their instincts, no matter what they do or how much they consume.
But wait, you haven?t heard the best part yet! If you listened to political analysts talk about the 2004 presidential race, you kept hearing the phrase ?sway the emotions of the voters?, which is what each candidate in a race has do to win a majority of votes. All emotions are either the products of evolutionary instincts or instincts/emotional attachments learned from cultures that were founded by people who were doing what felt best to their evolutionary instincts without realizing where their evolutionary instincts came from. Considering that recorded history began 5,000 years ago, scientific discoveries of the past 10 years face a tremendous challenge in overcoming cultural traditions, wouldn?t you say? That means that even though people can attach the emotional meanings of their hunter-gatherer instincts to the circumstances of post-hunter-gatherer society, most people in the world are making those emotional connections to the beliefs of cultures that don?t have contemporary intellectual understandings of the world.
You never hear the phrase ?sway the intellects of the voters?, do you? Some voters vote purely or primarily based on their intellectual evaluations of the candidates, but then, those aren?t the people the candidates have to campaign to, are they? Candidates could make all their positions known to the public without delivering powerful campaign speeches, but they could never win elections that way, could they? On the bottom line, one way or another, making personal impressions that make voters feel like voting for them is what gets candidates elected.
In other words, the mightiest military and economic power the world has ever seen has the ability to build the space shuttle, the internet, and nuclear reactors, but it?s still governed by hunter-gatherer instincts!
For all you leaders of organized religions out there, you have one more important thing in common. You all preach ideologies that teach their followers to be responsible members of their societies and to get along with each other. Unfortunately, you and your followers are still fighting over aesthetics, trying to force each other to accept your version of the truth. Every religion in the world has some good ideas? because obviously if a religion didn?t have any good ideas at all, nobody would feel like practicing that religion, would they?
Religious intolerance ends today. For 5,000 years you?ve been recording your various religious codes of conduct in books, and any time somebody does something that conflicts with your version of the right way to live, you point to your books and tell the person ?It says right here on page such-and-such that what you?re doing is wrong.? You people have fought a lot of wars over whose book is right and killed each other all over the place, and I guess that?s your own damn fault for caring more about proving your own book is right than you care about following what it actually says in all of your books.
When your religious dogma runs into people who just want to do their own thing and get along with each other, but don?t have a book of their own to point to, whether we talk about pre-literate cultures of old or the formerly-invisible culture of today, your dogma is even less tolerant, because you assume that our lack of books proves that we don?t know what we?re doing. Well, on behalf of conscientious humans everywhere, I?m here to tell you that period of history is over. It lasted for 5,000 years, but today it?s over.
Now we have our own book.
So what are you going to do now, hmm?
Since this book was written by the genetic evolution of every human being on Earth, it doesn?t matter whether you?re the Pope or a Bushman of the Kalahari or you work the night shift at Krispy Kreme, we all came from the same place. This book is for the global community of the 21st century what your various books have been for various groups of people at other points in history. That is, this is a code of behavior for people to get along with each other that includes every human being on Earth, no matter who they are or where they come from. It even includes every religious leader on Earth, so you religious leaders are more than welcome to join us. It doesn?t even require you or anyone else to give up your religious traditions, just to reinterpret your traditions to life in the 21st century, where there are a lot more people from a lot more cultural and religious backgrounds to get along with. But don?t worry, all of those people?s religious codes of behavior instruct them to get along with other people too, so all any of you have to do to join us is to put aside your aesthetic differences. As long as you can live as responsible members of society and get along with other people like it tells you to do in your own books, you can join us and believe in anything you want.
To all you political leaders out there, did you think you had any hope of withstanding a force that just swept away 5,000 years of religious intolerance? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Look, it?s this simple: Traditional politics are over. Every human being on Earth is basically a long-lost relative of every other human being on Earth. The conscientious humans of Earth are not going to live in fear of each other any more. Every culture in the world has good qualities. Some cultures have advantages in material resources; others have equally valuable advantages in things that just aren?t worth anything at the White man?s bank. You cannot build a global culture/economy as long as you refuse to recognize the good qualities of ?poorer? groups of people. If you want to keep insisting that the answer to life is 21 even now that cultures have the opportunity to share their best qualities with each other, if you want to keep on insisting that the Native Americans, the Africans, or anyone else only managed to come up with a 10 or 11 for an answer to life, that?s your problem. By taking the best that all cultures have to offer, we, the conscientious humans of Earth, have come up with an answer to life of 42. By your own system of mathematics, that makes our culture better than yours. Sorry.
All you political leaders out there are more than welcome to cooperate with us too. For you leaders of the free world who don?t want to cooperate with us, as the saying goes, ?There?s the door, don?t let it hit you on the way out.? Next election season, you better start looking for a new job, because you?re going to need one. We, the conscientious humans of Earth are the new dominant culture of the world, and we have no use what so ever for world leaders who just want to prove their own culture is better than everyone else?s.
Before I conclude this introduction, I need to make a few disclaimers. First, because every culture in the world is based on various understandings of the world that are incomplete by today?s scientific standards, over the course of this book I insult basically every ideology I?ve ever heard of?and I?ve heard of a lot. Every culture in the world has some good ideas and some bad ideas. Let me say that again: Good ideas and bad ideas. Over the course of the book I illustrate all the good ideas I?ve ever come across, but obviously there is no one culture in the world today that has all the good ideas. Considering that with the War on Terrorism we have entered the fifth global conflict since 1914, four of which were supposed to be ?The War to End All Wars?, obviously nobody has built a culture with enough good ideas to be able to get along with all the other cultures yet, have they? So in order to put everybody in their place, to get everybody to sit down and listen to what each other are saying for once, I have to do a generous amount of good-natured b*tch slapping. But don?t worry. By the end of the book I prove everything that everyone needs to know to finally be able to be themselves and to get along with each other. Until then, just remember one thing:
?You can?t solve all the world?s problems if you can?t laugh at your own mistakes.?
For anybody out there who doesn?t approve of my presentation style and thinks it?s ?unprofessional? or some bullsh*t, don?t worry, I?m smart enough and well-educated enough that I could be a doctor of anything I wanted. For the amount of higher education I?ve accumulated in my quest to figure out why the world works the way it does, I ought to have a PhD in Versatility of Thought by now. And as a result, as you may have noticed, I?m the one writing this book and a bunch of official doctors aren?t. It?s the young people of the world that I have to write this for, because they?re the ones who are going to have to figure out how to clean up this mess they?re inheriting from 10,000 years of globally dominant ill-conceived ideas. Unfortunately, in order to get their attention now I have to compete against MTV and Nintendo. There?s only two ways I?ve seen to grab anyone?s attention anymore, and blowing up buildings sure doesn?t grab people?s attention in a good way, does it? So here?s the other way. Don?t worry, everything in this book is just as true as it would be if I presented it any other way. So for anybody who?s opposed to what I have to say here simply because of my disaffected-youth presentation style, that doesn?t prove that I don?t know what I?m talking about, it just proves that you?re refusing to help build a future that your kids are actually going to want.
Finally, a warning about my credibility. It is not my goal to be right about everything. It is my goal to get people to start asking questions and to find their own answers. All the facts that I give in this book aren?t necessarily as true as I make them out to be. However, all of the facts I present are as close to true as I need them to be to get their main points across. In science that?s called ?an acceptable margin of error?. For anybody who has a problem with that, congratulations on being more of a geek than I am, but you?re missing the point. Did humans start evolving 7 million years ago, 5 million years ago, or 9 million years ago? Nobody can say exactly. Do the results of human evolution have a profound effect on the world that we live in? Yes, very much so. If you think that whining about archeological dates is more important than achieving world peace, that?s your problem. I?m sorry that you got picked on in gym class or whatever, but rather than trying to make a name for yourself now by being the person who prevented me from saving the world, why don?t you go find something useful to do with your life, like playing Dungeons and Dragons or collecting baseball cards or something? The world is full of people you can impress by devoting your life to memorizing meaningless statistics. I, on the other hand, have a world to unite.
Oh, one more thing. For as long as I?ve been working on this book, I have had visions of scholarly philosophers in black robes and mortar boards gathered in the corridors of ivy-shrouded brick buildings of prestigious universities, staring at copies of this book saying, ?But? but? but? you can?t prove the meaning of life by quoting Dr. Seuss, Star Trek, and Tupac Shakur!?