WHAT IS NATURAL HUMANISM?
Which Future? Choosing Democracy, Climate Health, and Social Justice confronts the choices humanity must make as we face the intertwined threats of climate change and social injustice. To make the right choices will require a new and truly different way of thinking about the world and ourselves—in short, a new worldview. I call that worldview “natural humanism.” In Which Future? I paint the full picture of natural humanism and how it differs from customary, prevailing ways of thinking. This page offers a brief overview in FAQ format. I hope it will entice you to read the book itself.
As presented in the book, natural humanism is neither an abstract philosophy nor a specific political program or ideology. Rather, it is a different way of looking at the world and our place in it, including a set of values and goals that are both principled and concrete. I call it natural humanism because it explains the principles by which we humans can live in greater harmony with the natural world and with each other.
Worldviews are the fundamental belief systems through which we make sense of all our experience. Subjectively, we “live” inside our worldviews–we literally see the world in their terms and explain everything from their perspective. Worldview differences derive from their basic premises. For example, the worldview of science assumes only a natural world and relies on systematic observation to explain things, while religious worldviews allow for supernatural entities and often explain by appealing to faith. Natural humanism is, among other things, a holistic worldview.
Natural humanism is holistic in that all its pieces interrelate, coordinate, and complement each other so that the belief system as a whole achieves a higher level of integration. Thinking holistically means focusing on the relationships and processes that comprise whole systems, and identifying common patterns across diverse entities. This approach–the opposite of analysis and reduction–is necessary to understand the complex dynamics of the natural world, including human bodies, families, societies, and cultures. Thinking holistically is often dangerously absent in current political and social policy discussions. One important example: We literally fail to see the forest for the trees, destroying the latter without comprehending the destruction of the planetary ecosystem.
Humans are interconnected and interdependent with the natural world in the same way our hearts and lungs are integrated into our bodies. Biologically, human survival depends completely on the health of our planet. Most importantly, Earth does not belong to humans! Given the damage we’ve already done to the environment, our challenge is to keep the planet healthy enough for human civilization to continue. Natural humanism provides a path to meet that challenge head on.
Historically, groups of people assert superiority over others and use force to dominate them (e.g.,colonialism, slavery, racism, and patriarchy). But under natural humanism presumptive superiority and domination are odious. Domination systems in every quarter should be replaced by relationships of cooperation, reciprocity, and political equality. Other fundamental social values are pluralism (diversity and inclusion), fairness, and compassion. Everyone is entitled to personal dignity, adequate living conditions, and participation in decisions that affect them. The best means to achieve these values and relationships politically is true democracy–meaning uncorrupted self-government.
The primary goals of climate health and social justice are intertwined in at least three ways. First, in practice, the political will to achieve climate health is unattainable without also addressing social justice; and vice versa. Second, both goals are rooted in relationships of interconnection and interdependence. In both cases, understanding these relationships is key to supporting the goal. Climate health is the prosocial state of our environmental commons and social justice is the healthy state of our social commons. Finally, natural systems have much to teach us about healthy social systems, and natural humanism draws important lessons from them.
Neoliberalism refers to the familiar, prevailing political and economic regime of the last four decades, one that strongly favors private ownership and profit-driven exploitation of public resources with minimal government regulation. Natural humanism rests on completely different premises. With its holistic way of thinking, it recognizes inevitable relationships of interconnection and interdependence, and favors those that prioritize the public interest. Natural humanism opens up possibilities not imaginable within neoliberalism. To see specific examples check out the Table from the final chapter of Which Future? which summarizes the key elements of divergence between the two worldviews.
The idea of a fixed human nature is a myth. In natural humanism, it is replaced by the foundational notion of the human condition: We are all constrained by laws of nature, including our own biological limitations; yet, within these constraints, our cultural choices and expressions are virtually unlimited. If we were to achieve the focus and will to do so, it is within humanity’s collective power to design our own destiny in ways that lead to a sustainable environment and social justice. The worldview of natural humanism is a moral compass that would point us in the right direction.
No “race,” religion, nationality, or sex is superior to another. All such claims and beliefs are bogus, as are all assertions of authority based on them. Because all persons are entitled to personal dignity, adequate living conditions, and participation in decisions that affect them, leaders’ authority is legitimate only when granted willingly by their followers. The best expression of legitimate authority is self-government through inclusive, participatory, and uncorrupted democracy.
Humans cannot survive and thrive without healthy physical and social environments. These are the common birthright of our species, the “commons” of humanity. Private property rights should not trump protection of the commons. In a legitimate political economy regime, the burden must be on private property owners to justify “taking” from common resources without prior (politically) negotiated compensation and appropriate limitations.
