To give some background, I'm trained in biology (UCSC) and seem to have a knack for it. My success with software probably gives credibility to my ability with simple logic. I've worked on a long term project to systematically figure out how humans can "adapt to the future" genetically and strategically so as to be able to survive and develop long term. I think I could revolutionize philosophy. which might sound silly, but I've worked on this for 44 years at this point. When you keep digging that long, you generally find something ... and I'm far smarter than I look. Besides, think about it. It's time for a new understanding. Humanity needs new understandings of ourselves and what we should be doing. Now you may be skeptical of that claim, but this isn't out of the blue. I said that I have been doing this systematically. I've already published three books: (1) Transition To A New Human Ecology - a Magnum Opus that would stun you to unconsciousness. (2) A book about cognition, it's good, but not really important here. (3) Genetics For A New Human Ecology about why humans must husband their genes and how to do it ethically and economically. To decide if what I am saying here is credible may I suggest reading a few pages of the Genetics book, the beginning is free to read on Amazon. It simply lays out not only an existential threat to humanity that no one has noticed but also solutions that will do much to take humanity to the future. I mean, genetics do matter... The thing is though that the human schtick of survival is behavior, so I finally got to the last book Strategy For A New Human Ecology and have been able to work on it for a couple of years though it obviously is built upon many years of work before. I think I finally reached the center of the onion. Maybe Ma'at got the closest philosophically. As I said though, I think my work is revolutionary in philosophy. It validates some classical philosophy and rejects other parts. It is based on Critical Thinking, but explicitly explores where Critical Thinking cannot go (Evolution is not governed by a logic we can access. It is organic - what survives, survives.)

So my question is: what should I do with this? What is the purpose of philosophy? To provide understandings, especially ones that the tools of science alone cannot provide. This can provide many new understandings. What is the purpose of morality? To provide an understanding of right and wrong. This can provide great new understandings of right and wrong. Is this currently relevant? Well, we sure do currently need some new answers. We're ready to tear the human world apart over issues like racism, abortion, economics, and politics. This offers understandings and moral guidance for all these topics. Humanity needs a vision, a goal or we will have no direction. This offers that in a very reasonable way. To make it, I've had to focus on it. Now it is complete enough to have value to society. Again I ask, what should I do with this? Heck, at this point, I'd take even some bad suggestions. Thanks, Mike

  • 1
    This question could be improved by narrowing and simplifying; and maybe spelling out as clearly as possible the specifically-philosophical problem you’re encountering in your studies that you’d like an explanation about from someone here (what does an answer to this question look like in your mind?)
    – Joseph Weissman
    Sep 29, 2019 at 11:48
  • Can you provide a link to any papers you've published to get a better sense of what you're talking about?
    – Cell
    Sep 29, 2019 at 12:33
  • I feel any attempt of this sort must be grounded in a definite metaphysical theory. So to me what to do with your ideas is to show that they solve philosophical problems and explain the world.
    – user20253
    Sep 29, 2019 at 12:59
  • Can’t you put it on Lulu? I don’t know much about that site but you may want the look into it. Don’t expect much to happen. I don’t think Nietzsche sold many books during his lifetime.
    – Gordon
    Sep 29, 2019 at 13:45
  • I think Gordon23 has the best answer, it is published on Amazon though. Cell, there is a link to one of my books in the article. PeterJ I think I've done that, now I need to know what to do with the answer. Joseph Weissman, I did spell out the problem that the problem is human survival and I think that the answer has to be philosophically based. Respected Moderators, I see your point, but since I am restricting the context of the question to what to do with philosophical ideas, I think it is a positive addition to this site. If not here, where would someone ask about it? Sep 30, 2019 at 13:05

1 Answer 1


The simple answer is that humanity is adapting. Natural selection and the genetic evolution that results from it is just one way populations adapt to their environment, or, rather, to the constraints imposed by their environment.

We are also adapting by changing our way of life, by developing new technology, by developing a better understanding of nature and of our environment, and indeed in particular by developing our capacity to predict the future evolution of our environment, something obviously that has become critical recently with the discovery of global warming and its potential consequences.

Of course, all this may not be enough but genetic evolution also is often not fast enough and we have to die of something anyway. My understanding is indeed that genetic evolution is much too slow and will not spare us from a major catastrophe, one like never before.

However, some people will survive and humanity will carry on, perhaps on a less grand footing but it will carry on. So, genetic evolution likely won't be fast enough to preserve perhaps for example Wall Street, the tourism industry, democracy, maybe science and our beloved sitcoms, but it may be fast enough to allow some humans to carry on into the future.

We might also be able to develop the new technology necessary to save most people and perhaps even to preserve the essential part of our way of life, although we better be quick about it. New technology or perhaps production methods, or political systems, or maybe ways to relate to each other. All this is rather unlikely but the discovery of the theory of General Relativity would have looked unlikely to people, even scientists, alive in 1870.

The possibility that we modify our own genetic makeup to adapt ourselves to our rapidly changing environment is a good idea. Humanity today has the best science there ever was. We have the ability to collect massive amounts of empirical data on ourselves and our environment. We also have the capacity to learn to develop models of our own evolution. And we may not have much of a choice anyway.

Obviously, scientists will have to develop a real expertise. They will also need to be very convincing that they have. They will have to convince our governments to do it. Still, overall, it is doable and again, there may be a point where it becomes a no-brainer.

And the principle is simple. It is the equivalent of driving a car on a twisting road. You look ahead, if you can, and you turn the wheels left or right, if you can. However, beware that you cannot stop the damn car or even slow it down.

And the car is going fast.

  • all answer can be summed as:"Time is the great devourer" or "Even this will pass away"
    – vidyarthi
    Sep 29, 2019 at 18:33
  • @vidyarthi Well, sure, because all answers are there to pass the time. Sep 29, 2019 at 20:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .