Yes, humanity is in trouble, as is the world and to fix the world, you must first fix humanity. I've been working on that problem for just over 50 years. Maybe there is another path... Maybe there has to be. "The first world that needs transformation is our moral world." Yes indeedy, but trying to go that path will fail... IMO. What you are up against is the programming of nature in our genes. That blunt strategy, red in tooth and claw, that is -almost- all that nature can provide. Maybe there is a way, but it isn't nearly as direct as you would like. ...And it is going to be a choice made by the women...
Luckily, we also have an instinct to cooperate. When we started walking upright, the time of Lucy, we were still small brained. We were not adapted very well to the new ecology we had entered. We were barely hanging on and the big cats loved eating humans. The larger brain evolved rapidly because of the need for cooperation and communication in order to survive. Through most of their evolutionary history, humans have survived rather precariously and conflict within the tribe could doom the entire group. We didn't just evolve a brain capable of cooperation, we also evolved instincts of cooperation that are easy to see today. People can be amazingly helpful and cooperative. Maybe even as helpful as they can be violent. The abilities of teams far surpass that of individuals. Then about 170,000 years ago, things changed. Art, funeral practices, hunting tools, social structures, etc. all changed. You might say that the parietal lobe evolved or you might be better off saying that the human brain re-organized. It was a human revolution. We became incredibly more capable and more dominant in the ecology. We started killing all those cats. We start killing everything, including each other, just ask the anthropologists about that. That evolutionary development improved human competency so much that it unleashed human competition without endangering the larger tribe. We had gone back to nature's primary strategy of mindless, unlimited competition. It probably peaked with Rome.
Rome showed what could be accomplished with violence and murder. Nobody really liked it and the cooperative strategies from religion and philosophy were embraced. The moral message, perhaps originating with the Zoroastrians and taught by Christianity, love one another, was able to challenge the vicious tribal morality Rome had inherited from nature.
So here's the problem. As you say, humans need a moral revolution. In the political sphere, you can trace our reversion to hypercompetitive strategies back to the actions of an admirer of biology who wanted to bring a more natural law to our governing. That would be Newt Gingrich. It is far bigger than that though. It is the mindless drive of nature for competition, the Law of the Jungle. It's not a very good system and will not work for humans because it will lead to the destruction of any civilization we build. We need more cooperation than it allows. The question is how do we make that moral revolution, back to using our instinct for cooperation? We can certainly see our nature given instinct for competition. It's likely to kill us. Luckily, we do have a powerful instinct for cooperation that is easy to see or we would have no chance of escaping the strategy of mindless competition. If that were the whole story, I don't think we could make it, but there is one more factor.
Yes, climate change might destroy our civilization, but we are unlikely to go the way of the dinosaurs because evolutionary history shows great survival potential for hominids. They are found all over the world. Still, there is another existential threat that nobody seems to notice. Interestingly, it was a comment about diseases just like Covid that led me to this. Diseases of always ruled humanity. What would happen if you removed them? It is basic biology that if you remove natural selection you would develop a genetic load of broken genes. Yes, I said genes. Don't fade. Just because it's an unfamiliar topic don't get distracted. Genes are the key to the solution of the moral problem... or had better be. Solving the moral problem can't be done with good intentions and that's all you offer. You mention the great wealth required as well. Where is that to come from?
Look at the genes. The easiest way to get the information you need to understand this is to read my book "Genetics for a New Human Ecology". It describes that what we have called human progress is the reduction of natural selection. This is happening at the same time that older parents are causing more mutations every generation. The book describes that this can be economically and ethically solved by replacing the natural selection that we've removed with pre-implantation artificial selection. The first thing that does is solve the existential problem of genetic load. The second thing it will do is create an incredible source of wealth that cannot be hoarded. Everyone could have good health beauty and brains. Nicely, it also shows the folly of racism.
It shows something larger about and this is the key to the moral problem. The genetic issue shows how limited natural strategies are. Nature cannot select for good genes, it just rolls the dice Humans can select for good genes. They can put the fix in the game. It's similar in terms of behaviors. Within a species, nature just makes blunt win-lose strategies. Humans can make win-win strategies, both in terms of genetics and behaviors. Sew... What could get humans to make that choice? What could make humans grow up? Go back to the genes. Really, women seem to get very interested in genetics when pregnant. That seems to match what would be expected of their instincts ... per Sociobiology. What would happen if you told women that 1/3 to 1/2 of their children would have major birth defects? The mild ones would simply lead to infertility. That's already common at about 15% of the population. I've wondered if that would be enough to get them to simply say "no". As the book describes, there are ethical economical ways to select for healthy genes in your children. (No, not CRISPR. It won't do the job.) The technology is already being used in its infancy. It is moral because it will result in healthy children and healthy families. My hope, because I see it as the only path, is that if we got used to husbanding our genetic destiny that we would then choose to husband our moral destiny. And that part is why I am working on Strategy For A New Human Ecology. That is the path I see to the Moral Revolution you talk about. Nope, it's not direct but I've been talking about that moral revolution for decades and everyone thinks it's a great idea, but no one seems to think it is compelling enough to act. Maybe the women will. Men will do anything for love, even build a civilization, an ecology that does not exist in nature. All the women have to do is tell them to and give them some love as the reason to do it. I think the future of humanity is primarily in women's hands.
It's all here... http://zagwap.com/videos/index.html. The book is cheap.
Or you can watch the movie... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjVieFKevMk
Do you have a better solution? just saying...
