This page is an effort to clarify what is the biggest challenge to our species, and therefore probably to you, if you indeed wish for our species to survive and have as good quality of life as possible and wish to participate in the effort to bring that about. So this is not a description of how "we" can work on getting "them" to change; it is a description of how you and I (i.e., all of us) can work on changing some normal but non-optimal tendencies within ourselves. That means identifying those tendencies, understanding them, and training ourselves to behave differently, i.e., in ways that are significantly different than what almost all of us have regarded as normal, despite unfortunate and even at times tragic results. It is working on improving our ethics, that can in turn be a model and an encouragement for others who may join us, thus promoting the already emerging ethical movement that is labeled here "Humanianity."

  • OUR GOAL   (What we would like to accomplish.)
  • OUR PUZZLE   (What is not easy to understand.)
  • OUR MISBEHAVIOR   (Our probably worst set of tendencies.)
  • OUR RESISTANCE   (Why our task is so difficult for us to accept.)
  • OUR METHOD   (What is necessary to get to the goal.)
(What we would like to accomplish.)
The thesis of this website is that:

(1) our species, just like most other higher-level animals, has built into it, through natural selection, things that promote survival of the species but have nothing to do with quality of life, so that, as is true of the other species, we endure, by virtue of what we do, much pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED), often referred to with terms such as "tragedy," with substantial reduction in otherwise obtainable joy, contentment, and appreciation (JCA),
(2) because of certain capabilities that we have that are far beyond those of any other species, most importantly the ability to (with increasing accuracy) understand ourselves and the way the world works, we can with that understanding inhibit and enhance (ethically) certain behaviors arising from our basic hominid nature so as to be able ultimately to achieve a far better quality of life on this planet than we have ever known (markedly reduced PSDED and increased JCA, for everyone).

The proposed goal of this website is that:

we successfully bring about, increasingly, changes within ourselves that will, as more and more participate, increasingly promote this far better way of life for all of us (labeled here as "Humanianity"), as soon as possible.
(What is not easy to understand.)
The puzzle is that even though we have the capability of such understanding, which does not even require substantial technical knowledge, we do not automatically and easily achieve that understanding, i.e., that we can and should change (inhibit and enhance) some of our natural tendencies in certain basic ways, and thus start acting on that understanding, in an agreed-upon manner, everywhere.

To a very great extent, we continue to do what comes naturally, primarily because it feels "natural" (and often even good) to do those things. Doing differently requires the development of heightened awareness of the possibility and desirability of changing these behavioral tendencies, as well as the difficult process of retraining ourselves and achieving improvement through repetitive effort ("exercise" of such new behaviors). But the importance and value of doing so should surely be evident, manifested everywhere in a concerted effort to bring about such changes. And yet, puzzlingly, it is not. This CHALLENGE page is especially devoted to the clarification of the answers to this puzzle, and to proposed solutions to this problem of the widespread, unfortunate behavior of our species that causes so much PSDED.

Even though we do not usually think in these ways, any of the ideas proposed here should, upon enough consideration, seem fairly evident. If not, then such a proposed idea is very likely incorrect. However, discussion with others will help prevent personal mistake, and also might lead to an even better idea than the one proposed (or a better way of stating it).

But first, what are these things that we do that promote so much needless PSDED and reduction in JCA, and thus can be called mistakes?
(Our probably worst set of tendencies.)
Although there are lots of behaviors and emotions (that are built into us as a part of our basic hominid nature) that lead to human decision-making causing much PSDED, there is one, highly-problematic group of such behaviors and emotions that are essentially manifestations of the same underlying, very important set of phenomena, labeled here as "dominance-hierarchy-related phenomena" or "DHR phenomena," that consist of DHR behaviors, DHR emotions, and DHR complex cultural phenomena.

(Please see the definition of "DHR phenomena" in order to properly understand this CHALLENGE page)

These phenomena are involved in the production of social organization that is hierarchical and are present in some forms (varying with species) probably in all hierarchically organized social animals.

Although these phenomena are generally successful in promoting the survival of a species by increasing organization and coordination of behavior and probably also optimal mate selection (in the natural environment), and although they sometimes lead to enjoyable emotion, they cause, to a very great extent, perhaps most of our PSDED. This is not easy to see, within the human species, because much of such DHR behavior is highly sophisticated and very pervasive, the result being that we assume that "that's just the way life is." And some such behavior is actually admired despite the PSDED produced (that admiration indeed also being a DHR phenomenon).

Although, as noted, there are some other behavioral tendencies (than just DHR phenomena) predictably resulting in PSDED and thus needing ethical modification, these DHR phenomena are being discussed in some detail here because of their prominence, widespread presence, and relatively enormous role in the production of our PSDED, and because of their specific interference with what might otherwise be much easier ethical correction of all of our non-optimal tendencies. In fact, although our naturally-occurring ethics itself arises as a DHR phenomenon, the kind of ethics produced thereby (authoritarian ethics) has not significantly eliminated our human-caused PSDED, actually being a significant cause of it. Indeed, the emergence of a new, more effective, kind of ethics, not produced by DHR phenomena, that actually reduces PSDED and enhances JCA, is the essence of Humanianity, namely, rational ethics with the HUEP as the ultimate ethical principle.

And it is very difficult to become fully conscious of how, at a deep level, we are intensively aware of, and therefore responding to, the possible effect of our behavior on others' response to ourselves (and therefore our position in one or more dominance hierarchies), such behavior including how we talk, how we walk, the way we eat, the gestures and facial expressions that we use, the way we dress, and the content of our thought from moment to moment, with DHR emotions operating often perhaps at low enough a level to be almost unidentifiable, but at times at a level that is almost intolerable. Although we may indeed seem to be able to be quite "carefree" at times, nevertheless, beneath the surface, we are automatically still quite careful. (And when this underlying awareness is even partially absent, the individual can frequently be recognized as being disabled by a significant psychiatric or neurological disorder.) Such phenomena are also the underlying basis for our rather frequent oppositional worry about "being controlled" (or perhaps "being manipulated"), and our high valuing of "freedom." We often wish to be "above" a position of submission (though of course sometimes we actually seek such a position).

Note that not all of these DHR manifestations are necessarily always bad (significantly reducing JCA or increasing PSDED). But on the other hand, almost every one of them has been considered to be a wrong way to live by at least some people under certain circumstances, and also almost every one of them has been enthusiastically engaged in by some people, despite easily observable resulting PSDED.

So there is absence of agreement with regard to the goodness or appropriateness of probably almost all of them, or with regard to the ways they should be (ethically) modified. This clarifies how we indeed have no agreed-upon basic ethical philosophy for our species, but have enormous amounts of PSDED because of these DHR manifestations (and of course other behaviors also). And this is despite the fact that we do have the capability of changing such tendencies if we can agree upon what changes need to be made.

(Without such agreement, the "ethical sense," the motivation to do what is believed to be the right thing to do, is weaker, partly due to uncertainty, and thus less effectual. Yet, to bring about change in these widespread, pervasive, non-optimal tendencies, the belief that we should make the necessary changes in ourselves must be accompanied by a fairly strong ethical sense, in order to compete successfully with all the strong motivations to engage in these other, very basic, habitual, non-optimal ways of doing things.)

In other words, we could presumably drastically improve our ethics, and thereby our lives, if we could just come to agreement as to what we should do. It is in this sense that, if our species ever does achieve such a much more agreed-upon, well-working basic ethical philosophy, then, in comparison, our species is currently "just a toddler," with a lot of growing up to do.

And, there is a growing sense of urgency regarding such change because of our increasing capabilities, such that we can do catastrophic things to ourselves, and are even in some danger of annihilating ourselves.
(Why our task is so difficult for us to accept.)
Okay, so why not get to work on a basic ethical philosophy for our species? It seems obviously needed, so why are we not all aware of this necessity and engaging in a cooperative, unified effort in behalf of us all? What is the nature of the resistance to doing so?

Well, one answer is that there is an almost universal belief that such is impossible, and if it is impossible, then why even think about doing it? We have better ways of using our time. Note that this is a "vicious circle." We don't do it because we believe it is impossible, and we believe it is impossible because, so far, we don't do it.

(A variation on this pessimism is the belief that, well, such change may be possible, but, if so, it will take thousands or millions of years, making such change irrelevant to ourselves now.)

Yet there are ways in which we actually do work on overcoming many of these difficulties, with indeed a little bit of progress over recent centuries.

Of course, such progress can be (and often is) discounted as insignificant by pointing to all of the many ways in which such improvement has not yet occurred (or by pointing to new problems that have appeared in the place of the old ones). And indeed this method of discounting success (by pointing to other, persisting and new failures) is the almost universal response to any advocacy for such cooperative effort that is accompanied by pointing to signs of beginning success.

(It is also very frequent that the pejorative label "idealistic" will be assigned to the person advocating for increased awareness of this significant improvement. And if that advocating person labels the beliefs involved in the above-described vicious circle as "being pessimistic," he or she will almost inevitably be told that having such beliefs is "just being realistic.")

The need to believe that significant improvement is impossible is quite strong. One important "value" of this pessimistic orientation is that it relieves those who have it of one more thing to worry about or to work on doing something about, and also of the danger of having to revise one's set of beliefs, a problem further described below.

And of course it is indeed easy to overlook the very early development of any exponential change, and therefore to deny the existence of it, because there is as yet so little evidence, and because it seems so "reasonable" to assume that things will always be the way they always have been so far (despite good examples to the contrary, such as the recent development of science and technology, that would have been hard to predict 100 years ago).

So what is the next reason that we do not do on a much grander scale what obviously needs to be done? This next reason will be our most disabling DHR phenomenon, even though not specifically listed above. Again, what we are talking about is the desirability and necessity for arriving at an agreed-upon basic ethical philosophy for our species, and the most problematic part of that goal is that which has to do with "agreement." There is a very, very strong prejudice against "agreement." And why is that?

It is relatively easily observable that the concept of coming to agreement, especially when there has been initial, fairly strong "difference of opinion," is associated to some extent, in many (perhaps most) minds, with submission. This fear of possibly submitting by "agreeing" is manifested by concern lest one be "brainwashed," or be regarded by others as having become a "follower," or "sheep."

The need to be able to demonstrate to others that one has "a mind of one's own" is associated with the fear of being regarded by others as "weak" and therefore a "loser" (easily dominated), and this painful situation is prevented by being oppositional (and even "disagree-able"). And occasionally, an individual may be so committed to being oppositional that he or she will claim to have no beliefs at all, thus implying not being subject to "being influenced," "being controlled," or "being manipulated" (or at least implying not being worried about such possibilities).

The concern lest one become submissive to another or others is further accentuated by a concern that one is being tricked into doing something for someone else, with benefit to that other person at the expense of oneself and contrary to one's own interests. Thus, there is a tendency to be quite mistrustful of anyone who is advocating that others do something, and a strong tendency to avoid "going along with" someone else, unless that other person is well known to oneself and trusted.

And even in the absence of concern about being tricked, there is the concern about being led into an activity that turns out to be a mistake (the concern about making mistakes being addressed below). So any advocacy is generally responded to by some degree of distrust and caution. (And of course such caution is reasonable, considering our awareness of how often humans have joined in with activities that have turned out to be mistakes and even tragedies.)

The next reason for avoiding agreement, that involves a change in one's beliefs, has to do with the DHR phenomenon of "tribalism." What our species has observed so far is a long history of tribalism and tribalistic warfare, from very small group conflict to international conflict. (Tribalism is, of course, part of our basic hominid nature, i.e., observed in other hominids also.) Obviously, these "tribes" (groups of individuals who identify with those groups) have had "differences of opinion" (different beliefs) as to how things should be and what should be done, and maintenance of such beliefs has often been considered a part of loyalty to the tribe (related, for example, to the current phenomenon of "political correctness").

So the incorrect, poorly recognized conclusion has been that a difference of opinion is a likely occasion for "warfare," often referred to (in its smallest version) as "argument" (using the meaning of "hostile discussion"). In other words, we have acquired an almost automatic assumption that difference of opinion, if discussed, must involve anger and hostile (verbal and nonverbal) behavior. Indeed, discussion in which difference of opinion appears is often characterized by DHR behavior, such as interrupting, talking too long, shouting down, nonverbal assertive and aggressive behavior, use of pejorative adjectives, and, in general, being "disagree-able."

There are many manifestations of this association between expression of difference of opinion and behavior that portrays anger, or at least pseudo-anger. Aggressive speech (loudness, expletives, pejorative adjectives) is assumed, often correctly, to add "weight" to the argument. Also, there is widespread belief in the value of anger, and the expectation of its presence as part of "standing up for one's beliefs." Outrage is considered evidence of one's goodness ("...with our fists and guns raised high..."). Many of us probably have to some extent a belief that "if he or she feels that strongly, then he or she must be right" (or at least better not be disagreed with). All of this is exemplary of difference of opinion being the occasion for "feeling" associated with the struggle for dominance, as opposed to rationality and the effort to achieve wisdom and agreement. (Again, this association of expression of opinion with dominance behavior increases the tendency to view agreement as submission.)

And this (hostile) behavior obviously is often a source of suffering, whatever else it might involve or produce. Some of that suffering may consist of the prolonged, painful awareness of resulting disapproval by others (with their irritation or anger toward oneself), that disapproval being manifested sometimes by behavior that is on a continuum that varies from the mild distancing of others all the way to expulsion from the "tribe," and even murder or execution, but at least stressful worry about one's "standing" within one's group or "tribe." So, coming to agreement about certain things may at times represent disagreement with, and therefore disloyalty to, one's "tribe." Agreement and obedience (conformity) become highly associated. Tribalism is a prominent part of our basic hominid nature.

This fear of agreement with disapproved of belief can be reduced or eliminated by having a way of believing that what is being agreed to actually makes one superior to (able to "look down upon") those who do not agree, such as being able to say that one is therefore a member of a group that is superior to, or more correct than, those outside that group. (And this of course allows for the development of religious or other groups that are actually dangerous to outsiders, that is, to those who are not members of one's "tribe.") So concern about being disloyal to one "tribe" can be ameliorated by simultaneous identification with another "tribe," and it is now fairly common that an individual is indeed a member of more than just one "tribe," since now we humans live in enormously large groups that consist of many smaller subgroups, several of which an individual may be a member, that may indeed be in disagreement, and even conflict, with one another.

(One method of "fighting" with another person regarding a difference of opinion is to proclaim to that person's "tribe" that the person has shifted loyalty to an enemy "tribe," perhaps, for instance, assigning a label to the person that stands for a member of that enemy "tribe," e.g., "Nazi".)

An example of this interference of tribalism in coming to agreement, or even participating in an effort to do so, specifically related to this website, is that a fair number of people currently will have nothing to do with Humanianity because it is labeled "Religion," while another set of people will have nothing to do with it because it is an effort to be ethical that is not based upon the wishes of a God. Each of these sets of people are concerned about being disloyal to their group, each group tending to have a culture that requires "staying away from" the members of the other group (at least avoiding in-depth discussion with them to acquire a good understanding of why they believe as they do).

But even during childhood, we become acutely aware of the apparent fact that difference of opinion (belief) readily leads to at least some degree of suffering. Children often learn that they are likely to be punished to some extent for expressing a difference of opinion, and they certainly can see the discomfort produced in the parent if such disagreement is expressed. It is not unusual for children to be told, "Listen to me! Don't talk back." (Again, note the apparent connection between agreement and obedience.) And when, because of punitive child rearing, the child becomes oppositional, rejection of parental beliefs may be such a manifestation, bringing about suffering on the part of the parent(s) and escalating parent-child relationship breakdown.

So we have had to find a way to deal with "difference of opinion" that could spare us this consequent suffering. We have actually found several ways.

One obvious method is that of simply stopping such discussion, or of making sure that it does not even begin. In other words, we have learned that some subjects should just not be discussed unless the conditions are just right, meaning that there is some way of being able to predict the absence of significant difference of opinion. As long as we can agree, we can eagerly discuss something ("Ain't it awful that..."), but if we disagree, then we should ignore that fact and perhaps just change the subject. And of course we can, if necessary, simply keep our distance from those who disagree.

But we have discovered that this is not the "best" we can do. We have come up with an even "better" solution, most frequently referred to as "postmodernism." The basic idea is that, since there is (apparently or presumably) no such thing as "Absolute Truth," there is simply the situation in which "what may be true for you may not be true for me." Thus, we can simply learn to "agree to disagree," and go do something else. We can share our opinions with each other, and if there is not immediate agreement, or at least agreement after some discussion (especially if anger appears), then we can "agree to disagree" and realize that further discussion will be "nonproductive."

Or, we can even set up situations (e.g., discussion groups) in which the understanding is that this is a time in which what we are actually wanting to do is to hear all the differences of opinion, which are therefore welcome, and in which there is no expectation that anyone will change his or her mind. What probably happens the most in such situations is that when an opinion is heard that sounds the same as one's own, one nods with approval and feels even more confident about being correct, and when one hears an opinion different than one's own, that just goes to show how wrong people can be and not know it, especially if they are not as capable of understanding as one's self is (all of this being more likely in such groups because of apparent disagreement based however upon poor understanding of each other due to ambiguous, metaphoric speech). And if a member of such a group proposes too strongly that attention be given to precision, consistency, and accuracy, by, for instance, advocating for agreed-upon definitions of terms, such an individual is often regarded as obstructing the activity of the group. Coming to agreement is simply not the purpose or expectation of such a group (one purpose being the demonstration of prowess, by demonstration either of knowledge, of skilled word usage, or of skillfully aggressive speech).

And the now widely accepted expectation of inability to agree is extended even further by promoting the ethical value of "tolerance," a current cultural example being "interfaith" activities. The goal, recognized as difficult, is achievement or maintenance of peaceful coexistence and cooperation despite difference of belief.

And there is at least one more very important and understandable reason for agreement not to occur in an initial situation of disagreement. It is the significant difficulty in "changing one's mind."

In the first place, the particular belief that is under consideration for possible change is connected most likely with a large number of other beliefs, all related as a part of a "belief system" (set of logically interconnected beliefs). So to change one particular belief in such a system could imply that the whole system in some ways might be faulty and in need of revision. This would disturb the confidence that one would have in the correctness of all of these other beliefs (a disturbance referred to sometimes as "cognitive dissonance").

Not only that, but the particular belief under consideration, and/or other beliefs in the belief system, may be important, for various reasons, in maintaining one's self-esteem (an important DHR phenomenon), and perhaps in maintaining confidence in some important (for self-esteem) undertakings in one's life.

One very important other reason for such connection to self-esteem is that, due to the standard model of child-rearing, in which the belief is strong that punishing the child for mistakes will be optimal in preventing those mistakes in the future, individuals raised in this manner (almost everyone) will subject themselves to internalized self-punishment in response to the recognition of having made a mistake. In other words, it can be very painful to conclude that one's self has been wrong. (That's why everyone knows that one has to take special care in calling a mistake to someone's attention, often utilizing special "tactfulness" lest the person "feel attacked," this tactfulness being an extremely pervasive DHR phenomenon.) And note that the word "wrong" has the double meaning of "incorrect" and "bad," as is further shown by the concept of having been "wronged."

So, presented here has been an effort at a fairly comprehensive explanation as to why we resist doing that which we obviously should do in order to achieve enormous benefits and perhaps even save our species from self-destruction, namely, working on coming to agreement about a basic ethical philosophy for our species. The ways of responding to difference of opinion, or belief, have so far been largely non-optimal, even at times tragic.

But if we can overcome our resistance to doing what is needed, what is it that is needed? What do we need to do?
(What is necessary to get to the goal.)
Well, if the above ways of handling difference of opinion (belief) are less than optimal, what should be the optimal response to difference of opinion, consistent with the HUEP? And why?

First of all, concerning why, the answer would be that inaccurate belief is likely to lead to mistakes, which have a substantially increased likelihood of causing PSDED and/or reduction in JCA, or at least of interfering with accomplishing a sought-after goal. If we are willing to acknowledge the terrible state our species is in (compared to how we could be if we stopped doing all of those things that we could predict would cause PSDED and/or reduced JCA ), we should be able to acknowledge the extreme importance of accuracy of belief. And when there is an observable difference of opinion (belief), then it should follow that such a situation is offering an extreme opportunity to achieve increased accuracy of belief. If two individuals have opposite beliefs, then rationally we would have to conclude that the probability was high that at least one of those individuals had an incorrect belief, or possibly both of them. So, in the case of actual difference of belief, at least one of the individuals could find out that he or she was wrong, and consequently receive the benefit of being able to change to a more accurate belief.

They could, of course, both be right, and actually agree, but not be able to recognize that fact because they are misunderstanding each other, quite possibly due to linguistic ambiguity, produced by, for instance, the use of different meanings for some of the words and phrases involved in their efforts to communicate. This is a reason why, in all important discussions having implications regarding survival and quality of life, there should be an emphasis upon precision (definition), consistency (logic), and accuracy (evidence).

And the optimal response, then, to the discovery of difference of opinion (belief) would be the commitment of the individuals involved to engage in intensive exploration as to where their beliefs started to diverge, with an effort to find a way to resolve such differences (rationally, i.e., consistently with the rules of logic and the rules of evidence, such as carefully defining terms and looking for the evidence supporting each of the beliefs). And this commitment to such discussion should be that it will, if possible and feasible (i.e., consistent with appropriate time-management), take place until such agreement can be arrived at, even if that takes a very long time, or requires repeated discussions of the issue. Such discussion could never be considered "nonproductive."

(Such discussion should of course be non-hostile, and sometimes has been referred to as "friendly debate." This issue is currently involved, though in a highly ambiguous manner, in the cultural preoccupation with "hate speech," and its implication for "free speech." The problem is, of course, related to the awareness that difference of opinion, or belief, has a high likelihood of stimulating anger, and therefore "unfriendly debate.")

Note that the above optimal response is only rarely carried out, for the reasons given above, under OUR RESISTANCE. Very frequent instead is (1) the conclusion that the other is being "stubborn" and "hard-headed," refusing to "give in," i.e., to submit, so that further discussion would be "non-productive," perhaps preceded by increasingly (verbal and nonverbal) hostile communication (sometimes quite subtle and sophisticated, but sometimes quite "animalistic" and violent), or (2) the postmodern solution to this problem, namely, that of "respecting" the other's opinion and agreeing not to discuss the issue any further, with the assumption that each person has his or her own truth, making agreement "unnecessary."

But it would seem that the belief that this proposed alternative response (namely, of continuing non-hostile, rational discussion with the goal of agreement) is optimal would be an extremely high level ethical principle, following fairly closely from the HUEP.

Therefore, accomplishing the attainment of this value, or ethical principle, may actually be our species' greatest, most fundamental CHALLENGE, such principle being something like:

    Insofar as feasible (consistent with appropriate time-management), we should continue discussing, non-hostilely, the reasons for significantly consequential (with regard to JCA and/or PSDED) differences of opinion (belief), with the goal of attaining rationally-based agreement (always with the remaining acceptance of re-questioning).

The enormously significant implication for you, if you wish to be a part of this extremely valuable and needed movement beginning to take place in our species' way of behaving, is that you should train yourself to inhibit anger and possible hostile response (including pejorative language) to any expression of disagreement with you, no matter how expressed by the other and no matter what that opposing opinion is, and to always indicate your willingness and eagerness to explore the reasons for that difference of opinion with the other individual until ultimately coming to agreement, no matter how long that takes, although, of course, within the demands of appropriate time management. Note that few currently would easily and quickly agree to this ethical principle, as it is very much inconsistent with what almost all of us tend to do, as this CHALLENGE page has been trying to clarify.

If we are able to move ahead in this manner, then our current cultural tendency to remain in divided "tribes," that can communicate with each other about their disagreements usually only in the form of mob protests, often with destructiveness and violence, will be replaced by continuous, public, friendly debate about the issues that they disagree about.

Note also that what is being recommended and advocated for is a change in our basic ways of behaving, such that as more and more of us engage in this very important way of working on our basic ethical philosophy, our leaders, even world leaders, will increasingly also feel the necessity to do so, in the form of regularly scheduled, transparent-to-the-world-in-real-time, friendly debate, as a far superior alternative to that of increasingly struggling for dominance through threats of, and actual performance of, painful and tragic actions, even to the extent of attempted wholesale extermination of populations.

So this important change in how our species behaves begins with you and me, not our world leaders who are simply doing what we do and what we expect them to do.

And remember that there are quite a few other ways in which you and I can work on changing ourselves (improving our ethics) than just ethically modifying our DHR tendencies and participating in promoting changes in our DHR complex cultural phenomena, these DHR phenomena having been focused on in this CHALLENGE page not only because of their extreme importance in general, but also specifically because of their interference with any improvement in our ethics, as described above under OUR RESISTANCE.

For instance, this website is offering a set of tools for those who indeed regard themselves as Humanian, and consequently wish to engage in such intensive, in-depth discussion with the goal of agreement. Especially noteworthy are the Humanian Belief Manual and Forum (links below), and the advocacy for the establishment of Humanian organizations, one function of which would be the provision of opportunity for such discussions. And these activities provide the opportunity for modeling and demonstration of the feasibility and value of such effort, probably therefore contributing to the needed exponential participation in the movement labeled here as Humanianity.

So if any of the above seems inaccurate or incorrect, calling attention to that assessment in the Humanian Forum (link below) would be very welcome and conducive to further thought and improvement of concepts.

Let those of us who can get beyond our natural pessimism, and can tolerate the discomfort of conscientiously looking for improvement in our belief systems, work together in behalf of bringing about this very much needed, fundamental, improvement in our basic method of working on our basic ethical philosophy, that method being, to the extent feasible, continued discussion to explore reasons for difference of opinion until agreement is arrived at (though always with the welcoming of future challenging of such conclusions).

If ultimately our species does not succeed (in achieving a far better way of living on this planet, by increasing agreement with regard to a basic ethical philosophy for our species), we will at least be among those who have tried, and if our species is ultimately successful, we will have been among those who have brought it about. And the work on this project should have much personal benefit for oneself and others close to one, by virtue of increasingly living consistently with a well thought-out, Humanian, basic ethical philosophy, as well as increasingly developing the skills necessary for reduction of anger and its consequences in all of one's relationships. (For more intensive exploration of the "management" of, and even prevention of, anger, you might read one Humanian's contribution, or hear and read this as a podcast).