A Way to Save The World: 

Good, i.e. 

the Global Final Paradise 

Of a Healthy World,

Will Win!

Think, if you would meet someone from the future, from an age when all or at least most of the present day problems were already solved. Maybe then you could understand what hese thoughts are about. 
The UFO example goes too far: that is not the level of generality of these thoughts here: these are human thoughts which apply also to the possible UFOs but that is different from UFO thoughts about humans. These thoughts here are based on my experience of life and on the ordinary things that are taught to all in schools all over the world: that humans too are animals and that we originally lived in a much closer contact with the nature and that we too are products of the evolution. 

(But I have thought these thoughts silently on my own, since no-one in my social environment has ever been interested in them at all. I have discussed intellectually about other subjects that have interested my environment, so my thoughts here reflect some academical education too. But in a sense they come from nowhere, they come from living in a culture which values holistic objectivity almost more than anything else.)

"AN UFO STORY"

I was just playing with this idea of meeting an UFO, don't know why. Maybe I am frustrated: there is a paradise in this world maybe possible and no-one is interested! No-one has ever asked me a single questions about it, no-one answers any of my e-mail except maybe to say that they are on a holiday... 

(My own sex theory has had over three thousand watchers and about one thousand readers but my own Gaia paradise theory only a little bit over a thousand watchers.. WHY???!!! Paradise includes sex too but of course you have to be "smart" enough to get to think about that! People do not seem to be all that smart... Paradise like sex in a paradise is better than ordinary sex without a paradise.)



Meet an UFO

In the astrophysics laboratory of X there are the collected results of interviews of an UFO. This probram has been made based on those intellectual discussions, so that you too could feel what it feels like to meet an UFO.

Is there life on Earth?
- Not in its ordinary form, but it is true that certain charachteristics of the organisms on Earth interest the inquiring mind.

Is there life on other planets?
- Certainly yes, even though not at all in every place and not always of the same kind.

How would you define life?
- An organism which is intengrately part of a bigger planetary organism system which has the task of protecting those organisms and which brings the meaningfulness in their lives in addition to the living requirements of the organisms.

How would you describe the organisms found on Earth? Us?
- Your species used to be a form of life. Now it is broken. It will not survive long. And the catastrophes causing its disappearance will have disastrous consequences for much of the rest of what there is now left of the life on Earth. It will propably take a long time for it to recover.

What is the primary charachteristic of life?
- It is the securing of the future for its kind via allegiancies with others. In other words: universal love.

What is your reaction to the present situation on Earth?
- The human overpopulation and the development of technology before the means to guide it have been fully developed are both dangerous to the organisms on Earth and to the broken whole that they form. Such lack in planning skills must be seen as a serious defect which should be dropped away. At earlier stages of the evolution those who went solely with growing teeth were dropped away by pay their lack of paying attention to the other sides of life. Now the whole is in danger. Those who started going ashtray should have been killed right away. Love does not mean losing compassion to those who are not present here or to the future generations to come. So life on Earth is broken since it did not prevent this and it did not repair the planning skills of those who lacked foresight.

Shouldn't You the healthy ones the cure us?
- Yes. That is what I am here for.

You alone? Is one enough?
- If you do not listen to one, your reason listens to no-one and so you all deserve to die away, leaving a healthier and happier world.

How are you going to cure us?
- I talk to you about the basics of life, about the need to secure the future, about the interdependence of all life, of your dependence of the nature environment and not on tools,... About the need to think holistically and to feel: to be a fully functioning individual and a fully functioning group.

A TRUTH WHICH IS SO VERY OLD
THAT IT IS IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS AND OF THE WORLD

A HUMAN BEING FORMS AN UNIFIED WHOLE WITH ONE'S LIVING ENVIRONMENT.
"All things are bound together. All things connect. What happens to the Earth, happens to the children of the Earth. Man has not woven the web of life. He is but one thread of it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." said the indian chief Seattle.
Whatever we do, want to do, feel motivated toward, is meaningful in just the larger picture of life, of the lives of us all, of the world at large.

The healthier the pieces of our natural living environment (including the society) are and the better they are at their right places, the better we function, the happier we are.

The amount in which we have reached the Gaia paradise, determines what life is like to us and in what kind of shape we are and so what life feels like to us.

We are by our nature parts of the whole world. So we are healthy just when we are interconnected healthily and naturally with the rest of the world. If we are treated as separate, that connection gets broken and consequently we are broken in what comes those our interconnected sides and so our functioning suffers a lot. This can be seen in how the state of the world and the state of the society etc. affect our own chances in life and our feelings and our motivation, our picture of the future. It can also affect in more subtle ways of which we are not necessarily aware of - see my example at increasing intelligence. 

Gaia is All Your Dreams Come True

Gaia pages

One problem is that when you think of the past of the human race, you think only up to the stone age and not about the even earlier times when humans were not grasping tools.

GAIA IS THE MOST PARADISE LIKE PARADISE OF ALL POSSIBLE PARADISES

(To the religious ones: it may be that if God created the world, he created it to be such that healthy kind of religious life is a part of full health and so the healthy world is also a religious world but otherwise just like I have described here on my pages.)

The healthy biosphere which I call Gaia paradise is the most paradise like paradise of all possible paradises. Any imaginable paradise is a paradise just the amount that it is like the Gaia paradise. Since Gaia is the state of complete naturality and health, the whole world in peace and happiness, which fulfils all our natural needs in natural healthy ways - also the need for peace and security and our needs in how each of the needs should be answered.

And each kind of imaginable world will do well in competition the amount that it is like Gaia, especially in the biggest matters. Since Gaia likeness is what gives power and well functioning, Gaia is the ready-made solution to everything - by God or by evolution's competition.

Gaia is the whole biosphere in a state of complete naturality and health: an interconnected whole whose parts carry responsibility about the whole, like is natural for beings with an understanding about their life and living environment, about the beneficiality of allegiances. Gaia is something like superbly moral co-operation in all scales.

How can moral win? Isn't moral a thing of the past, of the age before technology, military competition and trade? No! Moral brings the force of cooperation. To be moral means to act for the common good and that happens to be the most beneficial arrangement.

And feelings tell about the importance of things to life, so they tell information which is essential whatever one does, whether in competition or otherwise.

Technology is just an addition. It does not change the nature of things in what comes to living beings' functioning. Technology's effect to competition ability must be counted as a sum, as an addition, separately from how to treat the living beings. As technology is developed, it gets adabted to the requirements of living beings. Technology is capable of adabting, living beings are not. Evolution happens only upon time, upon many generations and it isn't jumb like, it is gradual and that is not the case in adabting to the technology since the technology is a new factor, a factor of a completely new kind. We must survive through technology based on our old functioning. Our most efficient ways of handling the technology, the enermous amounts of information in the modern world rely on our natural ways of functioning, for example on our capacity to handle sensory information of seen nature landscapes - much of the most efficient thinking is like watching imagined landscapes of structures, such is also engineering work. And the best training for such is to lead a natural healthy kind of life.


What then is the ideal way of life like? It is something like the traditional ways of Americal indians and of the other so called primitive cultures of the world with their close contact with the nature and with their healthy ways of living � with their enermous amount of sensory stimulus and other factors which keep us healthy and fully functioning. But that way of life has to be combined with having the technology: a portable computer, a phone, etc and importantly: modern kind of work to do. It may be that as the time passes, we will find more efficicenct natural way s to handle the modern work too, but for the time being we just have to combine two different types of building blocks: academically or at least school educated with the technology and natural healthy life with the nature. The latter gives us the capacity and endurancy, the former is what matters a lot in the modern world. Still, the piece of understanding that I am offering about the value of natural way s of living and natural living environment, may make it possible to change many things in how the cities and modern sociewties are run, at least on the level of looks and feelings & atmospheres, and that ought to cure a lot of the nasty feelings that people have: we matter after all!

What is this kind of intelligence then? Why and especially how expliciptly does it offer advantages in the moderns world?
Based on the natural healthy life in a healthy natural living environment you ought to have all your capacity in use. So you would be naturally intelligent, strong and wise also socially.
But this presupposes that you do value the life in the nature, all the natural aspects of your life, placing them close to your heart. Since if you wander in the woods and say to yourself that this is only the woods, nothing special that is, you weill pay no attention to the complexity of the view around yourself. A huge tree will be just one piece of something to you and you will bypass it in a fraction of a second. So you will get no training from anything. At large I consider it important to never say "just/only" but to trust one's emotional understanding of the worth of things instead! So if you wander in the forest and are touched in your heart by what you see, hear, sense and smell around yourself and in you while walking there, you will use all your natural capacity to conceive the things in the forest and get so much practise that there is no other way than other forms of healthy natural life to get such.


EVERYTHING IS BUILD UPON THE HEALTHY

All functioning is build upon the healthy and a healthy part is by its very nature a part of the paradise in the beginning of time. So everything is build upon pieces of the paradise in the beginning of time.

This is at the same time completely free and non-destructive, very constructive for happy life in the world at large, a movement for EXCELLENT MORAL IN HARMONY WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE MODERN WORKING LIFE AND THE PERSONAL QUEST FOR HAPPINESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OR SOCIETY. And since it SHOULD BE EASY TO LEARN, it could spread, maybe even all over the world in some sense, to some extend at least.

Could this work efficiency (or what ever) perspective of mine make you happy for the rest of your life?


CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND GAIA: EDEN WINS

Gaia is the paradise at the beginning of time: Eden. Gaia is the world the way that God created it: a nature paradise, Eden, the whole biosphere, i.e. all the created living beings and their environment, in the state of complete health and naturality.

GOD CREATED A PERFECT WORLD
God in his great wisdom created a perfect world: whatever you do, it is wisest to do it the way that God intentioned human animals to function, that brings the best result. Anything else leads ashtray, is a much less efficient and much less pleasant way to do things and brings much less understanding than the natural ways to do things and to live.

EDEN EQUALS GAIA
At the beginning of time, there was Eden. It is the same as Gaia, except that Gaia mentions the interconnectedness of things and love while Eden mentions God and belief in God. So Gaia goes well with the perspective of these pages and my two books: just these scientifical kind of facts I want to describe. But what I say about Gaia, applies to Eden too. So Eden is the victorious arrangement. Our true nature is still connected to Eden. Eden is the way to understand us.

GOD'S PARADISE
God in his great wisdom created a perfect world. It is the best possible also at these times of modern competition when there is in the world an element that God didn't create: the man-made artificialities which confuse our nature and make us more stupid than what we would otherwise be. Understanding this is our road to the paradise in the end of time: by a free competition of all the options we could be led back to healthy natural ways of living in a healthy natural living environment: the world and our way of living just like God intended them to be like. This is a realistical possibility: that is why I seek to use all the possible points of view, so as to enable people to add this piece of wisdom to their own view too. This could also be a way to prove God's infinite wisdom which was inherent in her (God being above our concepts of manly and womanly, I take God capable of both and since these modern times need especially the upkeeping and nurturing aspects of God, I use the feminine here) creation work.

CREATIONISM
The deductions on these pages and in my two books are based on the theory of evolution. What is God created the living beings without evolution?
It makes sense to guess that God created well functioning thoroughly thought of beings whose parts fit well together and support each other, like makes sense from the practical point of view. For such beings all of these results apply.

Making good win

GOOD OUGHT TO WIN OVER EVIL

Good ought to win over evil in a strongest one wins competition, like the evolution was. To see this clearly, let�s go through the good tough sides of moral step by step:

Human values bring a stronger force than no or too little human values.
Objective thinking with a holistic view brings a better arranged group than lesser quality thinking or no objectivity at all.
Honesty makes it possible to see how things are and so it is more benefical than lies as a practise in a society.
Justice gets the society arranged for the common good and is so useful while unjustices fail to support good things and support harmful things instead. So unjustice is a much less benefical practise in a society or group than justice.
Carrying responsibility helps to get at least the main things well, so it is more benefical than irresponsibility.
So good moral would win in a strongest one wins competition.

MORAL IS THE MOST BENEFICAL OPTION!
Lots of allies -> the force of masses
No conflicts in the large scale -> no forces spent needlessly to war etc.
Doing things according to their nature = according to how they really function
Correct feedback optimizes and corrects errors and weak points away

Use all of your understanding in the largest scale! Remember the value of cooperation, in other words of peace and prosperity and safety forever.

Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces -> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects -> guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role in the world;
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise.

Since all do not see this themselves, there may still be some doubt left, So I will go through the problems and classify them according to the above principles and other cost-benefit analysis factors that they break against:


Here are the dangers feared and after each of them explanations why moral is a better choise than them.

Robbery, criminals, unjustice of every kind (= a fractured whole):
* give feedback to those who cause each thing (health), so you can optimize toward better (health)
* breaking (= a fractured whole) versus cultivating (health)

Slavery and other kinds of forcing (= a fractured whole):
* the human goals in life and the human needs are connected (health) + answering the human needs and the working condition of the human are connected (health)
* too much forcing (= a fractured whole) forces one to a rebellion, to extreme means, so keeping the people under control is the harder and the more unprofitable, the more artifical, unhuman and unfair the arrangements of the rulers are (= a fractured whole)

Drugs, hypnozis, torture etc. (= a fractured whole):
* less individual guidance (= a fractured whole)
* typically such means would be used against the reasoning of the individual (= a fractured whole), against the individual�1⁄2s needs (= a fractured whole) and so against work efficiency and work endurance �1⁄2 such doesn't make sense
* also if such means are used to put a wrong class of persons into power (= a fractured whole), against justice (= a fractured whole), that means against reasoning (= a fractured whole) and is harmful to the whole and to the parts;
it also centeres the lives into wrong questions (= a fractured whole) compared to the efficiency, guidability and work endurancy point of view (health)

Fakes, lies, false propaganda, ignorancy, mistaken beliefs (= a fractured whole):
* such cause that one's actions do not correlate (= a fractured whole) well enough with the reality (health), such creates malfunctioning (= a fractured whole) in those respects
* the natural goals of human life make sense and fit together with the happiness of others too (health), so one should be able to live with the whole group in a good functioning order (health), that would give the strongest group (health)

Manipulation by the social instincts, by religion etc. (= a fractured whole):
* manipulation by the strongest instincts of humans is like manipulation by hunger,
it causes a situation where the manipulated person is in a wrong role (= a fractured whole) in the society, the benefit of their work and ways going to different hand than which created the benefit and so the system supports some malfunction (= a fractured whole) instead of the healthy life, prosperity and good of the nation (health)

Other kinds of manipulation (= a fractured whole):
* manipulation means often that things are used to wrong purposes,
some shortsighted technically thinking parasite like persons benefiting instead of those building the society, like farmers for example producing food (health)

Mutations (= a fractured whole):
* mutations usually create non-functioning (= a fractured whole) individuals which die very young (= a fractured whole)
* somehow benefical mutations or gene manipulation would bring new qualities which are not fitted well together to the whole (= a fractured whole), so they do not support the life of the organism and the organism isn�1⁄2t strong enough to support them (= a fractured whole), much less of being adabted to the larger environment (health)

Cool calculating behaviour (= a fractured whole):
* it is important to measure sizes correctly (health)
* humans have feelings in order to help in understanding things (health),
not using feelings as a way to guide one�1⁄2s behaviour (= a fractured whole) makes one dangerous to one�1⁄2s social environment (= a fractured whole):
a person who even alone destrous much of the society (= a fractured whole)

Selfishness (= a fractured whole):
* humans are pack animals (health), the group supports the functioning of the individual and social life is emotionally rewarding (health)
* cooperation (health) creates the force of masses, so moral is benefical: moral means cooperating for the good of all (health)

Commercial things:
* meeting human needs sells best (health)

Supercomputers, computer networks etc.:
* rationality (health) and optimizing
* the value of human ways (health) from the efficiency point of view
* feelings of humans connect to their needs (health) which in turn connect to their actions and well-functioning (health)
* differencies in the type of understanding of humans and computers: the natural understanding of humans about human functioning (health)

Technology at large, control devices etc.:
* control to only a few persons (= a fractured whole) of a certain kind versus
a correctable system (health) with the thinking ability of all used thoroughly (health) in making the arrangements of the society (health)
* real support (health) leads to safety (health), guidability (health), cooperation (health), higher intelligence of the system (health), better endurance (health), more optimized toward efficiency

Artifical living conditions and malfunctions created by them (= a fractured whole):
* the human nature s still the same, one created by the natural evolution: human needs and ways of functioning (health)
* the human being is an optimized whole: the different parts support the functioning of each other and the whole (health) �1⁄2 if one tries new combinations (= a fractured whole), they typically don�1⁄2t produce good functioning since humans are very complicatedly structured (= a fractured whole)

War, armies, militaristic ways (= a fractured whole):
* the enermous harm caused by war versus the benefits of peace and cooperation
* human values (health) are connected to well-functioning of the soldiers and civilians
* upbringing of the next generation needs peaceful circumstances and human values (healthy whole)
* a home to defend (health)
* making sense correlates with profitability, moral and cooperation
* guiding of actions (health) and correctability (health)
* alternative means (health) and optimizing
* ground for future life: fair enough, peace (health)

Short term view at the expanse (= a fractured whole) of a long term view (health):
* our thinking and our instincts demand us to take care of the future, so they do not support our actions if we do not care for the long term success. Such a deficiency in planning and motivation is a serious short term drawback.

A partial view at the expanse (= a fractured whole) of a holistic view (health):
* the first point in thinking is to get at least the main points right. That is possible only via using a holsitic view. So one using a partial view lacks the guidance of true objectivity.


I hope that You understand that these results aren't presupposing that you work for the good of some group. They are all right also if your are purely selfish, care purely for yourself alone, since then also it matters to you in which kind of environment you live and what kind of relationship you have to your environment. You are a part of the world and the world's influence on your life is a part of your fate. So it matters to optimise these things towards your greatest survival & well-being, instead of having arbitrary goals like "I want to be nasty toward my big sister". This optimising is what leads to choosing the strongest allegiancy together with healthy ways of living, i.e. good moral and natural ways of living. The allegiancies are wisest to form according to the society agreement type of thinking: you will get the results of society agreenmet like thinking: you get the results of what you cultivate, likewise do the others. Remember that you are special only to yourself, not to the others who similarly care mostly about their own benefit. And remember that moral in the sense that I mean it is different from what your mother maybe taught to you.

(Repeating:
Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health -> able workers,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces -> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects -> guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role in the world;)
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise in how to arrange one's own group and consequently also one's own behaviour - also for the purely selfish individual!


MORAL
Human values take care that the parts of the biological systems stay in good health, so it is an important thing in evolution�s competition and in God�s plan. Like I mentioned already, our feelings are connected to keeping us healthy. So human values help to give room to our feelings.

Objective thinking, honesty and justice take care that each thing is treated acoording to what it is like which is very important to the functioning of the system. They make it possible to put each part to its best place in the system. Those with good sides from which others cab kearn, get a good position for the benefit of all. And those with bad sides, especially irresponsibility, get punished to a poor position so that their harmful qualities get discouraged. This means having very many partial hierargies: one for each subject, skill, thing to decide, piece of knowledge,� Always the ones who understand best and carry responsibility about the consequences are in a deciding role.

In doing things intentionally the main point is to get the main things right. That means that the biggest matters of the largest scale and of the long run are especially important. Likewise are all questions of life and death important. Here one must remember that 100 000 lives is much much more importat than just one life and that the number of people in the human kind is 6 000 000 000 lives which is about 10 000 000 000 lives which is another 100 000 times the 100 000 lives and so even an much much bigger question than the huge question of 100 000 lives. So the large scale things affect enermously more than the small scale things. Thew large scale consists of the small scale, of its added effect. Our feelings should go with the large scale!



PUNISHMENTS AND MORAL

In my opinion the world is full of evil people. Trying to punish them creates a so big counterforce that it is imposiible in practise. So trying to punish all evil just makes no sense at all. Instead one should find other methods of guiding the world toward better.

Usually it is evil people who have a negative idea of moral: their moral is impossibly and uncomfortable to follow in practise. So people in their social environment tend to get angry at moral people, as if the moral ones were the ones forcing them and not the evil ones. But the moral people know how to live happily and be easily moral, their moral is pleasant and enrichens life instead of robbing anything - it is like a gift given to them and to others. So they have surely not deserved the attacks of the evil ones. It is the way of evil ones to rely on brute force in guiding people in their environment, regardless of its consequences, so just they are the ones whose demands make people so angry that they feel forced to attack.


A REBELLION IN HELL

Suppose that you were in hell and wanted to get out of there but there is no way: just the hell everywhere. The only way to get out of the hell would be to change the hell to a livable place but that seems quite impossible, things being as they are.

In hell there is fighting all over the place. So you can easily find people eager for power since power gives you protection, wealth and might over the others. Suppose that you knew about optimising the basics of what I know.
Then you could start with a group eager for power and success and optimise it toward best success:

Those of the group who damage the group would be strictly punished. Those who benefit the group would be rewarded.
The relationships of the group to others would be decided by the leaders only. Those who do not follow orders and cause unneeded conflicts would be strictly punished, since the group loses its strength in conflicts while at peacetime it can develop in strength via a better health.
It is beneficial for the group to ally with large powers, so it will do so - maybe even with God too. Wjatever it is that brings the most force, must be used fully.

Optimising this way one gets a group which is used to justice and peace and which one can optimise further toward a better survival. Respecting human values keeps the persons in the group healthy and makes so the group stronger. Holistic objective thinking, honesty in communication and demanding responsibility about all the consequences of one's actions create a system, group, which can guide its actions in the most intelligent and wise way according to each situation.

Optimising this way you will get the most optimised group, in other words: the strongest possible one: which is a moral paradise movement! since the above guidelines add to a perfect moral of the kind that evolution or God planned us for, and which so is the road to which our feelings and instincts guide us: the paradise like direction.
One could of course start with a paradise movement, moral people etc. if such are available - or with a combination of all these kinds of beings.

A STORY
The teacher took his decorated shaman drum and told them that they were to take a dream journey to a past life. Lying on their backs they listened to the steady slow voice of the drum as it took them to the journey. She imagined that she was in a town sheltered by a stony wall, and the enemy was attacking the walls. There was fighting all over on the walls. She wondered how had things come to this point. Hadn't they communicated with the enemy? Told them how peace and moral were better for even selfish people than war and evil running free? How could she live in a village of people who lacked social skills that badly, lacked rationally grounded moral? Hadn't she herself been talking about these things? It seemed unlikely. No, she would not find herslef in such a situation! The dream was impossible, like had been the previous dreams about past lives when she had died a violent death: with her social style and her social skills such negligience was impossible! (It is the friendly good willing fair playing persons who can avoid the violence of others against themselves, not the opposite type!)

In her eyes all the others looked needlessly, destructively malicious. Being a thorough character that made her ponder about her own decisions, her own courses of action. Could it be that the others, careless though they were, had somehow managed to hit the point, that they were somehow correct after all, because there were so many of them? A time after time she checked and rechecked and rerechecked her own estimates, taking everything into account – checked the thinking types that the others had used, what they led to, what where their good and bad sides and how one ought to correct them toward better. And a time after time she again and again arrived at the same end result: that she herself had been correct to begin with, that the others were not thinking almost at all, even though they guided their lives by this pretended selfisahness which in fact was mostly malicousness harmful to them too.
Each day of her life, all the years through, she checked in every way that she could think of, in every way that true objectivity and realism demanded, that she truly was right. And as far as she could estimate, and that was much mcuh better than what the others were capable of, she was right, had the correct main course of action, correct main guidelines in how to arrange the world at large to her best benefit. The others were just stupid, bypassing even their own wisdom – because the TV serie films did bypass it, because they were not skilled in making beneficiality estimates, because they could not make the difference between irritation and an enemy, or the difference between a harmful act and an enemy: they grouped all things as harmful to them, oblivious to the fact that humans are pack animals by character, that the force of masses exist at all.
They were the masses and they thought that someone up above was deciding all the things for them, when it was in fact their maliciousness which decided their lives for them – not their healthy selfishness, like they claimed even to themselves.
They referred to the theory of evolution, to the survival of the fittest, thinking that life was a game like a civil war, all against all, only the evil ones prospering. So they searched to be as evil as possible, as if that would make them as mighty as possible. They thought that there were evil rulers in the world and deduced from that that any kind of evil would benefit them. They did not understand that it was health, wisdom and the efficient use of tools which bought success.
Sometimes the common ideas of moral did not agree with what was healthy, so that things like self-defence and sex got labelled as evil, this leading to evil ruling. And as the people equated their mothers with moral, they typically equated moral with subordinance toward evil, which is just completely irrational, crazy, but explained by the dominant position that their mothers still had in their lives. They knew no other ground for moral. And since their mothers had commanded them to live in healthy ways, their disobedience turned against themselves, against the health of their ways of living. They could not make out the difference between artificial ways of living, unsuited for humans, and the usefulness of tools and hard rationality in handling tools. They thought that they could benefit from treating humans as if humans, including themselves were as simple as machines, as ununderstanding about the human nature and best ways of functioning. So they ended up destroying most things of value that they could have based their lives on, destroying all the understanding human sides of their lives: feelings, instincts, compassion, moral, healthy ways of living – everything of worth! They were the stupid ones.
She was wise, she had still aglimpse of the original human nature, of healthy ways of living and of emotional kind of wisdom of life, her soul was still intact, the core of her being partly unharmed. When they were stuck with inspecting single blocks, she was glancing at a whole landscape understanding also its each detail and of course their roles in the whole – much better than what they could even imagine possible.

Huge Systems, 

Pure Power Play and

the Fate of the Human Kind:

THE GLOBAL PARADISE OF A HEALTHY WORLD WINS!

Survival strategy:
Either: Be the winners
Or: Get the winners to be on your own side
If you choose a winning strategy, you are likely to achieve the latter if not even the former!

In short:
Biggest allegiancy gives you the strongest force, so ally world wide, in a way that is safe to you.
And health is the strongest arrangement produced by the evolution's competition, so choose the cultivation and safeguarding of good health as your competition strategy. (The concept of health can be generalised to situations including the artificialities in the world. It gives you the optimised arrangement of the whole.)

With the existence of technology

the word "healthy" gets a new 

generalised meaning: 

a well arranged
and fully functioning system. 

In what comes to the living beings this is the same as the old definition of health as natural fully functioning, as a product of evolution. In what comes to the technology, it means that the same principles that the nature found useful are useful also in optimising the technology and the large systems consisting of both technology and of humans - it means that there is no better option. But if there would be a some still better arrangement, we would adobt it of course... 

Selfishness means wanting things well for oneself and not caring much about other things.

It fits well together with my view here.

Wanting things poorly for others I term maliciousness. It is different from selfishness and even in contradiction with selfishness, like one can see if one uses a holistic view of the world. 

So maliciousness doesn't fit together with my view: you have to give up maliciousness if you want to live in a paradise. The reclutancy of people to this I see as the major obstacle on our way to the final paradise.

Self-defence is arranged in other ways than by maliciousness, for example by fair play.

A GLOBAL PARADISE IS MILITARILY THE BEST OPTION

First of all I would like to remark that my idea of what moral is includes healthy self-defence. So if someone hits you you have the right to hit them back but not any worse than what their crime is. So moral this way isn't as naive and defenceless as non-violence. Even though I have heard one version of Gandhi's nonviolence principle (it was in a book that I was reading a while ago) being the noviolence, the positivity of love. That means nonviolence, love when watched from the holistic point of view and not the bearing of all wrong just in order to follow the rule of nonviolence untill everything is conquered by others by the force of arms. Holistic nonviolence means trying to achieve the best possible state for the whole, i.e. it means good moral. So it is not the tools that amtter, it is the end result, which should be good.
So if you get hit by others, try to cure the situation, whether you do it by the force of arms or by talking or by any other means, work sincerely for the goods of the whole. One side of that is having the good ones in power. So if you behave morally, you should take care that you get the dominant role. That is self-defence with a good moral and it is good for the future too, good for you and good for others since it is good to have the moral ones in power since they arrange things for the common good.


In fact my main goal in writing has been to prove the following, so I will add the text here even if it does not fit well or is too cynical:

Starting from Sunzi's The Art Of War I can prove that a global paradise is the best option:
Sunzi says in the point about rolling stones that it is the nature of stones that "on a level ground they remain still but on a slope they move". Similarly the wise commander uses his men: it is the nature of the men that when they are truly motivated they act with force and when they are not motivated they do not act at all. The profoundnes of this principle is illustrated by the use of it in the major (i.e. its dimension is huge) point in the beginning of the Sunzi's book: "The people must agree with the goals of the government."
If we now take a look at the nature of the men in the light of our present day scientifical understanding of the world, we notice that the charachteristics of the men stem from the time when humans were still a part of the nature, of the healthy natural world. (You can compare this to the Tao.) It is the nature of healthy wholes that they try to cure themselves when wounded, so the men as parts of the world have as their motivational ground the making of the group as strong and flourishing as possible without it costing overly much to them. All the natural motivational factors of the men together with the aim for strenght and safety guide them toward best health and that means living as a healthy whole as a part of the healthy world. That is the safest and strongest choise which is also supported by our nature, it is a paradise upon Earth and the best ultimate goal for a military commander to choose. What kind of choises in what comes to the course of action and values to take that entails and why, I have discussed in my free book Power Politics Leads To Excellent Moral which is available at stores.lulu.com/khtervola but which might demand a some kind of registering first.

Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces -> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects -> guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role in the world;
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise.

So let us take a young happy and healthy naturally beautiful (beauty tells of well functioning - see my other book or my pages about feelings) young maiden on a flowery meadow as an example of a paradise. You may ask: how is this a militartily strong way to arrange things? I must refer to my usual example of a wooden leg working less well than a real alive leg. Also stiff unreactive parts of the body and mind, of whatever alive thing, work less well than those parts as healthily working and reactive. So the young maiden is an example of healthy well functioning and since she has a rewarding social life too, she is a good social example to others about those healthy ways to live. The world being huge and complex, it does not matter whether you were given a strong manly structure or a "weak" female structure if you just can serve as a model of the best kind of way to live to others, since there are so very many of the others anyway. And the maiden isn't stiff like the men - she is alive and has an excellent understanding about life and about the world - see my page www.paradisewins.net/atmospheresthink.html. Well, this is a feministic perspective but should be militarily correct.
A remark: a fine instrument seldom looks sturdy but can be extremely valuable in practise.

What you ought to do if you were a beautiful young butterfly on a meadow and knew that the world was conquered by giants who build ever larger works of their own, making the world so uninhabitable to a large part? You ought to cure the situation but being small and wise you could not build any competitive structures. Instead you would have to rely on other means: on social communication, on being a healthy example of a good healthy way to live. But if even the social skills of the giants were damaged, you would have to rely on being beautiful, a part of the nature that they would remember and treasure close to their heart and so learn from you. So you would have to fly beautifully, nearing a flower completely thrown to the flow of your deepest heart-felt emotions, the letting go, flying freely, nearing the next temptation etc. So beautiful, so healthy, so universal, such an enermous cure: just follow your own nature fully, it tells you what to do and what to not to do in the wolrd! And sure: butterflies are like that! What an enermous emotional kind of beauty they are: what a wisdom of life they have!

In social relationships she valued friendship instead of military practise like the other kids did. She knew that the healthiest soldier was the most capable and that the biggest healthy group the strongest, so she valued everything that could give her full health in every respect and was prepared to commit herself to achieve the best kind of allegiancies: real friendship. Toward the healthy we feel love, love is what gives us strenght, so it is also militarily the best option. There is no difference between the search for happiness and the fight for survival, as long as one does not resort to artificial means like drugs and negligience, lying so to oneself in one’s search for happiness. And moral and happiness connected via the need to do meaningful things in one’s life, to gain social position, to protect the things that give us good life, to protect the future too. Living in social contact with the rest of the living world you can best form allegiancies and in other words care for their well-being via compassion and they will in turn protect you since you are useful to them, to their happiness and well-being, to the state of the large things in the world that affect their lives enermously.

Maybe you could understand this better if you thought about each human relationship as a fighting team on life's sea. That is what it really is!

The unequality in human relationships ought to be taken into account in the following way: you get what you buy for a certain price only - this is the healthiest way to arrange things, giving the strongest allegiancy. If you want to buy loyalty, a quarantee that the other one will not hurt you without a really good reason, you have to pay the price by being loyal yourself that amount - or by being safe enough for the other one and exchanging the rest, upon the agreement of the other one, to some other good side of yours that the other one lacks, like teaching the other one some great skill that is useful in living and that the other one really wants to learn. The other one needs to know your lack of loyalty, if the human relationship is one-sided. Otherwise it is just like an attack against the human nature, against the natural society agreement, which says that you cooperate for the goals that you have in common and are in a clearly seen way on different islands otherwise. Emphaty together with other social skills ought to make this natural society agreement work naturally and with least danger, producing the very strongest allegiancy for all parties without endangering the ground for life, like less instinctual arrangements may do.

Follow your heart's voice in the tough world!
Your nature was created by the evolution to guide you toward the best survival. Your feelings and instincts guide you toward that best fitness by helping to answer your needs which in turn safeguards your health: your overal fitness needed for any task at hand. So the demands of modern work efficiency agree with your wish to live your life fully according to feelings.
Living fully according to feelings does not mean lying to yourself. Thinking must form a holistic view of what the situation is like. Only after that will you be guided correctly by your feelings!
This explains for example how good (=allying as much as possible, as wisely as possible) can be better in a fight than evil (=having the additional goal of causing needless damage): realism demands that the good too have to fight, otherwise they lose all power to the evil ones who bother to fight. It is used to be a part of the generally accepted moral that one ought to fight to defend good and oppose evil, but wrong kind of pacifism has removed thsi part of moral, making so the power dynamics of the world go all wrong. All the usual kind of motivational factors are for a happy kind of allowing non-religious moral, nothing for evil, IF healthy self-defence is allowed and encouraged as a part of moral. Realism says that we have to defend ourselves. One should not group moral wioth pacifism, not with the refusal to defend oneself, not with the giving of power away to the (evil) ones who do not care! The destructuveness of modern weapons means just that they should be used with great care since they cause great losses. All the available means should be used in guiding the use of weapons rationally TO the defence of good! There isn't any new factor in the world because of the existence of nuclear bombs etc.: just the dimensions have changed. Even at earlier times countries were afraid of too large destruction and figured out treaties to solve problems before arriving at such. So there is no need for changed policies: taking all the factors and their dimensions into account the old rules, like aiming at justice, should be all right! No need to replace them, for example true justice and carrying responsibility about one's actions, by pacifism by any means.
Universal love, as I see it, does not mean pacifism by any means, without any limit i.e. without regard for its costs to human (& other) lives. It simply means that you care for all and try to affect things toward better via your greatest ability, for example while understanding that you just have to carry responsibility about all your actions: you cannot help devil like people out of kindness - that would be torture-orientedness in practise when watched from the point of view of their victims AND of the world at large, of the fates of us all!

What is the use for an army from:
∑ An increased ability of its members?
∑ A better organisation of the whole?
∑ A better motivation?
∑ A better acceptability of its actions in the world at large?
∑ A real apprexiation of the rationality of its decisions from both the outsiders and insiders?
∑ An increased understanding and responsible action of its members?
This is what my thoughts: the health, excellent moral, the so called soft values and women can give to the army.

A question: What to do when hard reality (the existence of all kinds of evil, wars, lack of moral, cool calculating behaviour with a complete disregard for feelings and the good of others, etc.) meets the soft values (moral, feelings, religion, the values needed in upbringing children, etc.) ?
Then it is a matter of who is the strongest. That means that one must increase one's own strength via health and the strength of one's group(s) via their health and the number of one's allies via as many allegiancies as possible. So the answers given by the soft values apply, but one must be keen on noticing who is on one's own side and who not, so social skills matter a lot. Between the groups there is a "war" of some kind, it depends on the groups how much figting there will be. A society agreement like picture of the situation would help one to see how much one can trust each party and how one so can form the maximum, best amount of allegiancies. For example one can form rules of behaviour inside the allegiancies that take care that people behave all right even if they are not themselves moral. But defence orientedness is needed. Inside a big group tha often happens via specialization while individual evil ones try to fight on all fronts at the same time. The same happens when the level of moral in a group is low: the individuals get forced to a fight against each other and so the remaining part of their forces is smaller, producing less strenght and a lower standard of living.
How to go about this fight in practise then? You might agree with Sunzi who says that "The victory giving battle is like a stone smashing to an egg." But just take care that you are not so the egg and the stone the enemy, i.e. generalise enough in order to see the true consequences of your actions: if you attack women and children thus making the war more disastrous than what it used to be like, the others will do the same to you and so you have lost safety instead of gaining. The point is to not to break any rules of the society agreement but to fight with excellent moral, opposing only evil things and things which lead to evil if they are allowed (like pacifism to the extreme of allowing all evil), thus you see the targets of aggression and the things to defend and the motivation behind your actions and those of others. What is needed after that is strenght, intelligence, knowledge and skill. That you do not gain by attacking the innocent, you gani it by fighting with your true enemies. A good way to understand the ground for things is to use the islands of the society agreement like picture of the world: all things being created and supported by certain factors, persons and/or groups: just oppose or support each kind of island's supporters. Thus you can build anything and safeguard things valuable to you, while seeing in which way to prevent the disastrous things.

In theory it goes like this: suppose that you meet a mean guy or a group of mean guys and find yourself threatened by them, then you should look for someone higher in the hierargy than what they are or for some more intelligent mean guy who is interested in one's own benefit. Then you could use these efficiency grounds of mine to speak for justice, human values and responsible behaviour. If you find someone who really trusts objective estimates of things, that MIGHT solve your problem...

One can optimise wholes in practise a charachteristic by charachteristic: if they are very different, they are independent, and if they are very similar, one can optimise them the same way. So choose from the following what health is (always the first option in the list):
strong or weak,
sensitive and intelligent or unsensitive and idiotic,
allies witha huge group or in conflict with a huge group,
follows one's feelings i.e. follows one's own instructions of usage or does not follow feelings i.e. does not follow one's own instructions of usage,
allies to build the strongest group possible to the extend that is prepared to sacrifice one's own life to protect it or does not care to invest in the strenght of the group,
social and so able to take the most out of encounters or unsocial and not able to get anything much from encounters,
follows rationality or does not follow rationality,
thinks of the whole or not.
You may ask: how can one then ally if one is a predator. For this see the answer in my own Gaia theory in my Gaia pages. One way to ally is to ally with the group instead of with its individuals: to eat away only the ill ones in order to increase the health of the population and to live healthily so as to by one's example support healthy ways of living in the society. One can also ally on the parts that one is not in conflict with anyone, like for example a murderer who is against rape does...

So if soft values really are a wiser choise, how do they exactly win over the hard values? In my opinion one needs the hard values too: the safeguarding of good. But the point is that the soft values, especially good moral, are the rules in how to arrange the whole and not the hard values, especially not evil as a rule. Moral used to be a matter of defending good. In that sense moral is still the correct choise. But moral which is almost equated with pacifism suits inside a group of allies, not among all.

So maybe you believe that health of all the wholes that you belong to, is the best alternative to you. But what about having enemies? Make their moral a condition for their health, i.e. demand health of their relationship to the whole world as a prequisite for their own health. Then they cannot use the fact that they are to a large extend healthy themselves unhealthily in what comes to the rest of the world. In other words: do not give the evil ones too much room to live and to ruin your life, the lives of us all. A happy moral way to live builds a better world for all of us, so it is good to let it rule, even if you are not all that moral yourself - yet!

Then why is the paradise here a global one and not for your own group only? You are a part of the world, so your relationship to the rest of the world matters a lot. If you are for a paradise for all, you obviously ally with the motivation of the enemies too, even if their own side isn't able to ally that much... But what matters especially, is that you should follow the most beneficial guidelines in the world at large in order to benefit from them, in order to win as much as possible in the future and to lose as little as possible in the future. If you do not follow justice in the world at large, your own side may degenerate since you do not always support the best alternatives. If you do not allow human values for those who aim at the global paradise, you lose allies. But of course you must demand that the enemies must be moral enough before you can support them. Anyway, the level of the whole is important and just in that ( and in other things too) it is important to follow the best choise, the moral paradise movement. Otherwise people would copy the strategy that they considert the most intelligent and the leader's too "selfish looking" choises would be repeated in their own group which would weaken the group, see the page /justice.html (?).

SELF-RELIANCE IS A NEEDED SAFETY PRECAUTION FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM
In order to arrange the whole well, each part has to be treated according to what it is like. This is a fact well understood in market economy, justice, honesty and holistic objectivity. But what it demands in practise is that all the parts of the system are enough self-reliant in answerig their basic needs, so that they cannot be pushed about and robbed arbitrarily because someone else controls the answering of their basic needs. Instead each part has to gain its place in the system by its own virtues only (and lose position fairly because of its faults).

HONESTY AND HAVING ENEMIES

Moral demands honesty toward the healthy parts of the natural world. Those healthy parts form a whole whose functioning is beneficial to you and to your group.
If your enemy is just malicious and overaggressive compared to what is fair, refuse to communicate with that enemy at all. Keep your mouth shut. Since if you would lie, that would be like pretending to be a part of the same group. It either is of no use or then works only for the part that you are taken as a group member when you in fact are an enemy. Not recognising who allies with whom and who supports what, sets the whole ashtray, everything to more or less wrong role in the whole, so it is one of the crimes that OUGHT to be most opposed, since it takes the ground away from the system: supporing parasites instead of farmers etc. But of course lying is widely spread and kind of accepted as a major part of human to human interactions. One cannot remove it just like that. One still could avoid lying in the major matters of the world, say in questions of life and death and in more important matters. That means among other things that one should value honesty in leaders. I guess that that works only after people have learned to see their enemies as partly healthy and as partly "the shadows that one oneself casts" like the chinese classic Tao-Te-Ching says and only partly as things/deeds to fully resist because of being evil/harmful in essence.

DARKER MOTIVATION:

WHAT IF THERE IS DEVIL IN POWER?
Suppose that the worst happened: that the big devil did exist and got to rule the world. Why would we still have hope?
Devil worships evil or then he is power oriented. In the latter case he listens to the optimising of wholes.
In the former case we can conquer the world from him by the force of arms and by the force of optimising.
In any case the healthy world: a global paradise i.e. good would win.


A BAD DREAM
She awoke with a start. Someone had been taking to her, repeating something again and again.She did not know whether it was a dream or something else. She barely remembered what they had said but the basic idea was clear: she was inside a finely build artificial world and the world was broken. It had been finely build for the purpose of living in it, but people had not understood the need to live in such a world, so they had tried to escape, or to oppose the rulers. In any case they had done everything imaginable to oppose and to break the whole system. They ahd opposed every single thing of worth in it and opposed even their own natures to break it. And they had succeeded. Now she was inside a giant torture machine. Since that is what a giant life sustaning system becomes like when one intentionally breaks it. Her only hope was to repair it. There wqas no special method of repairing. She had to trust in her ordinary everyday communication skills to convince the countless others inside the machine that one ought to stop sabotaging things and repair them instead. It was an ages old problem of creating good moral to where there were nothing to begin with... There was no on-off switch. It was a long road to travel, and her fate depended on her travelling that road all of her life!

Is this our future? If it is one of the possibilities, the we had better prepare ourselves for it!


THE EXTREME POSSIBILITY OF ALL BEING SPIRITS OR ALL LIVING IN A VIRTUAL WORLD ("NO MATERIAL WORLD"):
THINGS STAY THE SAME IN WHAT COMES TO THE BEST OPTION IN HOW TO ARRANGE THINGS.
THE SAME APPLIES IF THERE ARE LOTS OF ARTIFICIALITIES IN THE WORLD.

What if we are spirits or virtual, what if the world doesn't consist of atoms, molecules, we not of cells, what if everything such is just faked, how are things then, what happens to all our deductions about the usefulness of Gaia? Things stay the same since we are still some kind of entities, which have the same characteristics as wholes, so the theory about wholes and fractures in wholes stays still valid, and Gaia is the most beneficial option.
(If everything were of spirit and the world at least partly created by our beliefs about it, that could appear to us modern people as a virtual world.)


Also, if whoever would rule a virtual or spirit world, the ruler would need guidability - that means honesty, objectivity with a holistic view and true justice - and well-functioning of the parts and of the systems and subsystems - that means health (since healthy parts function well while broken parts do not function at all) and naturality (since our functioning is based on the natural ways of functioning and on nothing else) which mean at the level of individuals human values.
Putting each part of a system to its correct place and correct role in the whole, so as to get the whole to function as well as possible, means health and naturality of the whole and its parts and structures since that's what their functioning is based on.


It is quite easy to figure out what is the best way to arrange a virtual world for just about any purpose: respecting health of the individuals (human values) and of the systems (including naturality and moral) while having natural hierargy in who can affect what. This should be easy for all to learn and to understand:

NATURAL HIERARGIES
There is a natural hierargy in human societies: the way that is according to real justice, for the good of all. If we get apprexiated for our good sides, they get supported for the good of all, and others can take us as an example for themselves without losing position at all. If we lose position when we do not according to justice deserve a good position, our bad sides, especially irresponsibility, get discouraged. When the one who understands better and carries responsibility is in a deciding position things get done well for the good of all. This is possible by using many many partial hierargies at the same time: one for each subject, skill, thing to decide, piece of knowledge,... Correcting one's own errors is a thing to value and to be demanded from all, especially from those in a deciding position. This creates a natural repair mechanism for the society and is an ideal way to arrange things.
CARRYING RESPONSIBILITY of the whole and using a good picture of the whole with all emphazies and roles of things right, guide the whole toward the good of all. One is not allowed to affect things which one does not carry responsibility over.
There is a saying in Finland: "Honour those who truly deserve respect." (Meaning: even when it is an unorthodox choise, and do not give honour according to custom to those who do not according to justice deserve it).
This is the way that we organize things in my homecountry Finland in North Europe.


Let us suppose that we are all virtual, all the humans, all the animals etc., maybe even theUFO:s adding a flavor of their own to that mixture. Each human is virtualised to one's own virtual world with its own rules, everything run by huge superhypercomputers or however. How does that enrmous huge complex whole work? What would make sense for the individuals to do in such a world? What are the dynamics of that system? Each human being is different, so we have to take a look at what we all have in common, take a look at the human nature. All dynamics 9in connection with the living beings is born out of what the living beings are like. So if someone wants power or workers or whatever, they have to count on the human nature. That's what gives the functioning needed for reaching any kind of goals. In that one must remember the value of human values: a healthy one works better than a broken one. Also justice and true objectivity are musts for the buidlders of such systems and for those who want to benefit from their dynamics: treat each part according to what it is like, so you can best benefit from it. Read the texts about rational moral! … So it stays valid that Gaia is the best option, the answer to the question of hgow to arrange one's forces best and how to best arrange the rules in the virtuyal worlds. And Gaia for Gaia is the answer to how the individuals and groups could best benefit themselves and their goals in such an enermously complex and seemingly arbitrarily arrangeable world.

Paradise is the best Let's take the hypothetical situation where people are just a computer figure colonny living inside a computer so that everything is possible. Then you might think that if someone has something good, one ought to take it and spread it as widely as possible, via artificial arrangements. But that does not work since that makes people copy from all those lower quality people when they want that good thing for themselves too. So the whole deteriorates all the time. That is contrary to the situation of fair play where all get their own good sides and nothing else. Then everybody knows from whom one can learn things that one wants to one's life. This is a better way to reach good life and even a paradise upon the "Earth(?)".


SELFISH TO THE EXTREME

In the end, what matters, is what life is like to you yourself, since that affects you the most. What happens to the others is of little significance in itself, but is of course important in giving you the environment that you live in. So it matters enormously to be selfish, in a sense that is the only possible rational choise for the individual. But that does not mean carelessness in what comes to treating all the others, more likely it means well planned strategic action in social contacts: sometimes careful and sometimes when there is no need to be careful, even completely careless. A well planned strategic attitude toward others is different from pure maliciousness which is more like a thing based on social feelings than any cool calculating behaviour that would be determined by its beneficiality to yourself. Rather than to act based on maliciousness, anger, agitation, the wish to neglect others or any other negative or positive feeling, one ought to start by examining feelings: what is their role in your life, what are they caused by, why, what do they lead to and is that end result beneficial or unbeneficial to you?

Whether God created living beings or they were purely results of the natural evolution, life goes on. The very weak die and the very fit prosper. As the time passes that produces a situation like the evolution, which God and the genetic wisdom in living beings born from the unnumerable many generations of natural evolution must know well. So what we are like has been chosen by the previous circumstances so that it brings us the best fitness for the life in our living environment.
What we are means our whole being, including instincts, feelings and social life as well as thinking and knowledge. All those things in our nature are beneficial for our survival if we just know how to use them right.

One of the strengths that is good to have, is the ability to estimate situations right, in other words good observational skills and real objective intelligence to make the deductions about what one has observed right.
The first point in objectivity is getting the main points right. That is impossible if you have no idea of what the main points are like. You can get that idea only by having a proper view of the whole thing and of its major relationships to other things in the world & of its role in the world. So only holistic thinking is objective thinking. Other more partial forms of objectivity are just fakes and no use to you if you want to find out how things are and what would be best for you.

You are just a one single person and the world is enermous. You can affect you fate by doing different things in the world, which will then have (positive or negative) consequences on you yourself. The wise affects one’s own fate toward the positive, but what that positive is, depends on the individual: someone would like to be happy, for the others security and survival in the long term are often the only possible goals. But the evolution or God was wise: it is often possible to use the search for happiness as a tool for survival, that is how God or the evolution meant things to be. So before you drop all feelings away as a needless stuff, let’s examine more closely their usefulness to you. At big catastrophes to your wishes & needs in life, you feel down. When something great happens to you, you are glad. This far fine: feelings guide you in a way that makes lots of sense. But what if you have many contradictory causes of feelings? Use a holistic view of the situation, with proportions right and causes and consequences taken into account, and let the feelings find their balance. Typically if things still do not work out all right (do you feel happy and secure?!), you have neglected some causes and consequences in your thinking. Typically such happens when someone that is more intelligent than you are fails to understand the importance of a holistic view and uses a partial view instead, taking so only a part of the facts into account and neglecting all the rest regardless of how important they are in practise. One can do this big errors only at a great cost to oneself. Well, this thing about understanding how to live with feelings without giving up selfishness is a thing to be handled by making honest observations about the end results of following feelings – and remember that looking less fortunate is equal to failing, not equal to being manlier than you! Others trying to save face when they are in fact stupid is usually of no use to you. Please read my book Work Efficiency and Likings about the rational grounds for trusting feelings!

I care about myself but why would I care for the people of the whole world, much less for the animals? A holistic view means thinking about the whole world, it does not necessarily mean caring for all the people, even though it easily leads to it as we see how caring is really beneficial for ourselves. We are not alone, the world affects us enermously. But where many go wrong is the thought that since the world is so enermous we cannot ourselves affect our living conditions, since after all we do affect enermously our nearest social contacts – whether they are near because of living constantly with us side by side or because their identity is like ours – for example selfish. If you choose a certain strategy in a certain kind of situation, all those near you, all those like you and all those like thiose near you, reflect on how well you did succeed by that strategy, and if you succeed really well, the rumour spreads and all of them start to invest in that same strategy in life, making different versions of it. So if you think that you have a good strategy in life, ti is not yours alone: it affects an enermous number of people, so you know one thing for sure: your environment does NOT stay constant regardsless of what you do. So you just have to take a look at how you affect your environment in the likely case that others copy from you. That is done by assuming that all or a big part of the humans in your environment rely on the same type of tactics, with individual variations and inventions of course. This is easiest if you think that as some fraction of the effect of all following the same course of action: for example do people get supported for doing beneficial things (= justice, market economy) or do they guide their actions in a way that makes most sense (= holistic objectivity, carrying responsibility of the consequences of one’s actions). Because it is a questions of masses of people – your environment + its environment etc. – working together for the things that benefit them all, it is the same things which has traditionally been called moral: the optimisation of the whole, wisely!, toward the greatest benefit for all fairly. Fair play allows feedback for the chosen strategies, so that the masses of people ca guide the whole huge group toward the greatest benefit: safety, prosperity, happiness,… whatever goals the people have.
Kind of gold rush connecting your strategy to the behaviour of many many others, making your own behaviour so echo in the behaviour of the masses of people, changing os your whole environment and making it thus important for you to think of the consequences of that change instead of estimatig everything as if others did not notice anything of your strategy. So you have to use a holistic view and think what would happen if everyybody would do like you! That brings your attention tio the laws governing the whole and makes so you work for the common good instyead of bering a parasite - IF you want to advance your own good. You can count the optimised result for the whole: that is best for you since the effecvt of your environment to your life is so enermous. And that optimised option is perfect moral, like you will see if you count the best allegiancy for you: it is to ally with an as strong group as possible. In the strongest group all work for the strenght of the group all that they can and are fairly rewarded for that. Another word for that is moral.







THE TRADITIONAL EXTREMELY RATIONAL MORAL OF THE FINNISH SPEAKING MAIN CULTURE OF FINLAND

The traditional moral of Finland in northern Europe is on strong rational grounds which can be put to the form of optimising wholes. These grounds are largely based on two simple advices which all children are given: "It is good to cultivate good health (of the individuals, of the ways of living, of the social relationships, of the society, of the environment and of the world at large)." and "It is stupid to break."


The easy principle "A HEALTHY WHOLE WORKS MUCH BETTER THAN A BROKEN WHOLE" helps you to find answers to seemingly impossible questions, like the value of peace, justice, human values, honesty, democracy, freedom, Gaia, love, beauty, sex etc. from the beneficality or efficiency optimising (military or economical) point of view. These are all charachteristics of the healthy world and thus beneficial.

HOW TO MAKE GOOD WIN OVER EVIL
Build in your mind a good picture of what a healthy whole is like: healthy society, healthy human kind and healthy living king, a healthy world. That is what to term good.
Now, compare the evil option to that picture: what is lacking, you should see as a fracture, brokedness in the whole, also malformations should be seen as brokedness of the whole.
And healthy works better than a broken one. So good is stronger than evil.



Also on the following kind of ground it is possible to find that moral is the most benefical, winning option.
WHICH ONE WINS (MORAL DOES WIN)
What means totally value-free optimizing of benefit without preconditions:
It means interest in
what gives most force, power,
what gives protection and how,
what is the best strategy,
what must one take into account about the future,
how to arrange one�1⁄2s relationships to other powers,
which solutions win and why,
what is the most benefical thing,
what must be most feared and
how to protect oneself,
who are the benefical allies etc.
In this analyzis one needs
Extremely good objective thinking with a good holistic view
And openeyedness toward all options, both the dangerous and also the non-dangerous ones is needed in this because it is the creation of force which is important in this analyzis, so if soft means give any advantage that too must be used FULLY.


HEALTHY VERSUS BROKEN

All functioning is build upon the healthy. Healthy versus broken is the pair of opposites to use in order to understand the world. I will apply this pair of opposites again and again, all through this book. With it you can understand a lot about the functioning of biological beings and societies and about the value of moral.

What about the old pair of opposites then: healthy versus ill? Ilness is a healthy function of a broken biological being, a way of it to try to cure itself. In other words, ilnesses are combinatrions of brokedness and of a curing reaction which seeks to make sure that the living being survives better in the long run by resting, having a fever etc.
In my opinion the word �ilness� isn�t as useful in understanding things as the new pair of oppoisites that I use.

So. A healthy individual works better than a broken one. And a healthy society works better than a broken one. But what are the healthy individuals and healthy societies like. What to aim at?

A healthy individual is by one�s nature a part of a healthy society. As a part of the healthy society one works best, is the happiest, has a most rewarding life. Healthy functioning at large gives the most rewarding life. That�s what the evolution � or God � quarantees about feelings.
But if the society is broken, it is the same as if in individual is broken: the healthy parts try to cure it back to full health. Each healthy individual is a center of recovery for the whole society, even for the whole human kind as a part of the biosphere. Health in this sense means healthy ways of living. Having found the true chord about the art of living, understanding deeply about life, the healthy individual is naturally a center figure in the social environment having a healthy curing kind of effect on all. This is a moral thing to do since it is for the good of all. So a healthy individual is by one�s very nature completely moral in a healthy happy natural way!

The health of a society means that it is completely morally arranged. A society is a cooperation attempt and cooperation is something which has turned out to be useful during the evolution � or in God�s eyes. Objective thinking says that cooperation is useful because it brings the force of masses. That can be seen as a vector sum: harmonical or contradictory vectors. Those with like interests can ally for the common good.


WHAT I SUPPORT

To the readers of these pages: please do observe conscientously what are the starting points of my thoughts (= all the points of view that I have heard of) which I use ONLY because you others use them, and what are the end results of my thoughts, the thus supported values (= paradise, excellent moral ad a life completely according to feelings) that I support from my heart. Here observe that the starting points are not logical premises for me but premises only for the other parties that I do oppose and to whom I try to prove my point in a discussion. I do support only the end results and not the starting points, even though I value realism but to me these end results ARE realistical values!

SELFISHNESS

Technology is typically build to a certain purpose only, with a complete disregard for its relationship with the rest of the world. That is contrary to the nature where the health of the whole (incl. pack & liv. environment) helps the survival of its parts. And since animals can understand the value of their own health, can they via compassion and an analogy of the whole to their own life UNDERSTAND also THE VALUE OF THE HEALTH OF THE WHOLE, WHICH understanding HELPS THEIR OWN SURVIVAL. -> GAIA!

What is already ready made, complex but well fitted to form a well working whole, well suited to its purpose,like the nature is, is in character very different from things in their building phace where product development is still lacking, like is with tools and technology.
We have natural ways of looking at the nature, understanding it in its complexity and intentionality: emphaty and feelings at large. The ways of looking at the much less complex technology and the build world are different.

PROTECTION

To live happily and to wish well for others sounds nice but how to protect oneself? The need for protection isn�t in contradiction with the wishing well to others. I didn�t say that you should sacrifice yourself for others, I said that you could live happily! And if you are moral yourself you deserve to be protected because you thus work for the common good. You can yourself be one of those who protect you. You must protect yourself from those who might harm you, that means from the evil actions of others and of yourself i.e. you must demand moral from yourslerf and from others. If you yourself err from good moral, from the wish for good life for all fairly, you are thus not allying with the health of the world and so you are harming yourself compared to how things would be if you allied with the health of the world. Better than unjustice is to build on things of real worth. That�s why you can sometimes benefit from punishments which guide you toward more moral action. It is better to see the power dynamics of the world: of how people like to be treated, what they answer with good, and how they do not like to be treated, what they answer by attacking. Wish well and protect yourself � that�s morally fully OK, even demanded by moral since as a moral person you are a person of worth� Protection of good is an important part of moral, and what would be good if not happy life with no suffering and a good future ahead? This is exactly so when watched from the holistic point of view!
If you have difficulties with just this point, please read my page www.paradisewins.net/societyagreement.html . Friends can coperate and benefit from that, enemies cannot and must defend themselves against each other, not trusting the untrustworthy. But one can be fair and moral in this. One should divide all rights on the condition that they are not abused in any way. So all rights are conditional. This leads to very unequal division of rights since the individuals are very different indeed, but that is only fair and not against the equality of individuals since all are entitled to the same rights IF they only satisfy the same comditions demanded by true justice and responsibility.

IDEA SOCIAL GROUP = the best arrangement created by the evolution

Loving feelings tie each part to its best place in the whole.
Imagine two parts (berings) loving some good sides of each other. They get tied together by that love, forming so a subwhole = friendship. While they are independent where they do not like some charachteristic of the other one.

Hate (which, like love, MUST always be directed toward /against JUST the thing that caused the feeling - otherwise things go badly ashtray!!) gets rid of parasites and of other harmful things.

In the perfect group all beings and all parts of beings get their place according to what is best for the group: high if skilled and responsible, low if unskilled or unresponsible. One hierargy for each thing to decide.
Justice keeps things so.
Honesty helps in keeping up justice, so that one can form the strongest possible allegaincy and aren't fooled to accepting a much much weaker one instead.
These calculations about the effect of practises to the whole concern so huge things to the individual that they overrun in importance the position of the single individual in the group - it is better to have the whole on a good ground: also rewarding social life where you can trust people and not jsut some money - so very few have enermously much money, it aren't beneficial to support parasites benefitting that much, since money counts only when there are big differenciesd in the money available for a certain use.


THE HEALTH OF A SYSTEM, OF THE MODERN SOCIETY

There are some basic truths about the functioning of complex wholes. This include the importance of putting each part to its correct place in the system. This is connected to the value of objective thinking, honesty and justice and to the success of market economy: in each of them one gives things feedback according to what the things are like and that enables one to put each thing to its correct, best place in the system.

Having each part at its correct place in the whole means that the system isn't broken. This is connected to the value of unifiedness, fracturelessness in well "planned" systems.
The value of fracturelessness is in turn connected to the value of harmony:
Imagine a system broken into pieces, starting to repair the system you put some parts to their correct places: you get small unified, harmonical islands, the better repaired the system becomes, the more harmonical its functioning, the more unified the whole. A well planned system functions without contradictions and fractures, harmonically. The next step from harmonival is unified well functioning. Such are the systems of nature.


The value of harmony as a vector sum

Several harmonious forces sum up to much a bigger force than a group of contradictory, unharmonical forces or a separate one of the forces in question.

< > v ^ contradictory
versus
> > > > noncontradictory, harmonical

Harmonical solution creates more benefit and loses none to opposition
- unlike the contradictory solution attempt.

Thus, cooperation gives strength while strength is lost in conflicts.
So one who values cooperation is stronger than a like one who values conflicts.
And so "soft" harmonical means prove to be valuable. Like this one can see how peace is more beneficial than war and count the difference. One must just add the huge effect of the enormous destruction caused by the enemy. Also there is a loss in war to the safety of the future, like the society agreement with other countries tells.

Applying this result thoroughly gives the efficiency-optimised result:
the most harmonical arrangement:
the natural and healthy (in harmony with the natural ways of functioning of the living beings)
loose (according to the way that things are)
global (all parties in harmony and cooperation)
cooperation.

Ally as much as you can. That brings you success in life. Ally with the society in order to produce good living conditions, ally with the moral ones for the same common cause and with friends to defend the things, which you value. Ally with the living kind to achieve the paradise, Gaia.

Compare the value of harmony to the value of unifiedness and f