Be neutral

Core sentence:
True objectivity requires letting go of our human standards and observing behavior as part of a larger, amoral system.

TREBLA:
Our starting point is the existing reality: the phenomena of the world, in line with the phenomenology of, among others, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). As already emphasized, we must disable our prejudices and observe the interaction of everything on Earth as neutrally as possible. Eliminating such prejudice is difficult because we ourselves are part of a human society. We must therefore be aware that our thoughts are “clouded” by the norms and culture of that society. So first detach ourselves from our own image of humanity and observe the world neutrally from a distance, as if we were not part of the system, just like a spectator looking at an ant society. This is comparable to how the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, (ca. 50–135 AD) approached his environment: calmly and soberly accepting whatever presents itself. The only thing we do is observe the system without making any moral judgment. We may see living systems in which members help each other survive, but also systems in which the members kill each other in order to survive. We must refrain from judging or condemning such systems from our human perspective. Our goal is to understand and observe — not to judge, nor to intervene. All this in order to understand that the system has developed into what it is today.

ALEX:
Indeed, we must be as objective as possible and look at it as an external system.

TREBLA:
My experience, after reading various literature, is that many writers have a biased view of humanity. Some share the view of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), that humans are by nature egocentric and only sympathetic toward other people because they realize that they cannot survive without them (social contract).

Others hold the view that people are all sympathetic toward each other and naturally benevolent, comparable to the view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). They try vigorously to prove the first or the second approach. However, we must realize well that the only way to arrive objectively at a realistic view of humanity is to distance ourselves and regard it as another species of animal that we are studying.

ALEX:
That should indeed be the approach. However, it will be a challenge to switch off our empathy for them and see them only as components of a system.

TREBLA:
The system of the Earth, nature, and living beings changes continuously, but as a whole it continues to exist. Therefore, in the case that a system succeeds in continuing, there will be regulatory mechanisms that influence the system in such a way that balance is maintained or will be restored.

Although we would like to keep our distance and consider the system as something remote, it is probably easier to first focus on our subsystem of human beings, but we must, again, remain mentally aware that we must maintain our cognitive distance.
When a society thrives and the number of participants increases, a shortage of food, materials, or other necessities may threaten the survival of that system. To preserve balance, mechanisms are needed. These may be mechanisms initiated and controlled by humans, or, if that is lacking, by nature.

In the first case we may think of global agreements to limit the number of people on Earth — for example by means of birth control. If this human-designed ‘mechanism’ does not work, the natural reality will eventually take over and the resulting overpopulation will lead to famine, wars, diseases, or even environmental damage — in such a way that the subsystem either becomes extinct or is pushed back toward a possible new equilibrium.

ALEX:
I agree that this balance is rather delicate. On the other hand, when something “disastrous” happens at the level of a subsystem, we must view it objectively, not as disastrous, but as something that happens and will lead to a new equilibrium for the entire system; with or without humans or another subsystem.