Heaven for a Mole is a Hole

If any species or human beings can only act in one way, any concept of 'right and wrong' and of ethical vales is redundant. In order for choice to arise both intellect and technology must develop. But even though human beings now have this broadening of horizons, the question still remains - how much we can realize of any choice we would aspire to. If society develops in some part of the world that is environmentally limited, so may our practical moral choice be limited. In the Americas it would seem that civilizations arose that had to battle with nature, and other competing civilizations, and survival required strict discipline and regulation of farming and animal husbandry. Such a climate must favour a Tyranny in the form of theocracy imposing a religion that tries to placate the gods. The horrendous outcome of this is well known. In another direction, it may be imagined that humans could have developed with a genetically induced bias towards extreme individualism. This would have militated against evolution of any kind of advanced society, or a limited choice and that Anarchistic. The autonomous family only loosely confederated. However, the pressing question is whether we, as a whole, are capable of a full theoretical social choice. There are many Formulaic Christians, who have no idea of Altruism, asserting that it represents a laissez faire ethic. Others either believe Christian fellowship is a kind of sex fest, or juvenile flower power. And in today's political climate, with the idea that growth, greater population, greater and greater wealth and possessions, are the norms of modern society. If we wish to survive with an altruistic regard for the whole of nature, and for our need of a natural environment, and in communities - towns and villages - on a human scale. How are we going to do it? Not simply by individual enlightenment, nor by seeking a philosopher king.