[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that it's hard to conceive of a world without manmade rules of conduct.

I don't think you do understand. You do not seem to have a very firm grasp of anything that relates to the biological world, based on what you have said about various biologically related topics in this thread. That leads me to believe that you have unrealistic expectations of humans.

But what if the rules and consequent punishment --- if those rules are broken --- are actually causing the very thing they are trying to correct?

What do you think rules and punishment are trying to correct in society?

It is obvious that there can be great shifts in culture, and it is interesting to think about and discuss what brought that about. I found Karen Armstrong's book, The Battle for God, interesting because it talked about how different religions responded to cultural pressures, often in the name of reform. Reform-minded individuals and movements appear regularly in human history, so when cultures/schools of thought/etc. need revision in order to remain relevant. So, I have no problem believing that rules and punishment will change when the group that has formed them no longer feels they are appropriate. It happens time and time again.

I do not think that the book/idea you are promoting provides a strong argument for reform.

The belief in free will was absolutely necessary because we were developing, but now we are able, through our intelligence, to create a new paradigm shift where authority over others will no longer be necessary.

This sentence is nonsense pretty much from start to finish. I don't even know how to address it. As other people have noted in this thread, a belief in free will has not been universal, even in Western culture. I do not even know how relevant an idea it is in non-Western culture.

I enjoy the thought of an egalitarian future, and the idea of equal respect and dignity for individuals. I do not pretend that this will prevent harm to humanity, even if perfectly implemented, or that we will not be social creatures who will no longer have biological natures. Also, I do not see how these ideas intersect with the free will/determinism argument. What does that have to do with these kind of ideas?

Even though man is an animal, we are of a higher order and can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species.

Another nonsense sentence. Prove that we are of a higher order of animal than a walrus by using objective criteria. Prove that we can create a better world for ourselves and all animal species without eliminating river blindness.