During the global COVID epidemic, it became painfully clear that in politics there is no world but only states, whereas for pathogens there are no states, there is only the world.
Yes, this is an important topic and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to repost the discussion of cardinal human values from an earlier article that mentioned this. From our January 20 post:
Cardinal Human Values
This social [imperative] rests on a value premise, one that proposes two “cardinal human values.” (The meaning space of “cardinal”, for those not familiar, incorporates elements of central, essential, of greatest importance, fundamental, vital, and so important as to be indispensable.)
What are these cardinal human values?
First, that there must be respect for all people — for all life, actually. (This doesn’t mean that we must respect all actions or beliefs or not protect ourselves from harm.)
Second, there must be a universal outlook in which the welfare of living beings is given a higher priority than personal desires.
If these two cardinal values are adopted within a society, then that society will naturally establish policies and programs — structural approaches — that reflect the depth and fullness of the human experience.
With the word limit this substack maintains, sometimes points get left out. I'd like to take the opportunity in a response to Betsy to say that the intent of guaranteed purchasing capacity (ie, Principle #2) is that everyone would have the financial resources needed to obtain their necessities -- health care important among them.
Regarding health care, I suspect we're all in agreement that this would best be managed through some form of health care for all approach, as opposed to the individual health insurance system.
Garry Davis, a longtime peace advocate, former Broadway song-and-dance man and self-declared World Citizen No. 1, who is widely regarded as the dean of the One World movement, a quest to erase national boundaries.
Thanks for this, Suzanne. You are such a consumate connector.
I would say that nations could have their place, much as other political demarcations like states, counties, and municipalities do. I think the essential point is that, according to the principle of subsidiarity, certain matters are best managed by nations and other matters by a world government.
Thank you. I feel this article presents a vision that is not only necessary but inevitable if humanity is to move beyond the fragmented, crisis-driven approach that defines our current reality. The idea of a world political body rooted in neohumanist principles speaks to a deeper truth—our interconnectedness as living beings on this planet. Yet, the absence of a unifying structure that prioritizes life over profit, cooperation over competition, leaves us vulnerable to forces whose only allegiance is to power.
I especially resonate with the call for a life-centered constitution. Imagine a world where governance is not dictated by short-term political gains or corporate interests, but by the inherent dignity of all life. Where environmental protection, economic security, and cultural expression are not privileges but fundamental rights. Where communities can thrive with local autonomy while remaining part of a larger framework of planetary stewardship.
Of course, the challenge is not just in envisioning this reality, but in making it real. How do we transition from a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a few to one where decisions are made for the collective good? How do we prevent those with the most resources from shaping global governance to serve their own ends? These are questions I continue to ask myself.
If we are to build a world where core human and ecological values shape our institutions, I believe it must start with us—through advocacy, through education, through grassroots movements that refuse to accept the status quo. Change begins when people dare to believe that a better world is possible and take the steps, however small, to bring it into being.
This is something I am quickly coming to realize. The more I engage in these conversations and reflect on the world we are creating, the clearer it becomes that the responsibility is ours. If we do not take action, who will? If we do not insist on a future shaped by justice, sustainability, and cooperation, then it will be shaped by the unchecked interests of those who benefit from division and destruction. The path forward requires courage, vision, and a willingness to build something new—starting now.
Of course the question always arises, how do we get from here to there? While reading this I thought of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so I reviewed it too see if it is a jumping off point of values consensus. (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). What stands out is that it does not address the natural world - it is "humanist" whereas the principles raised here are inclusive of all life and the planet itself, therefore "neo-humanist." Rights of nature is becoming accepted and codified in many places around the world, so maybe we have made some evolutionary progress since 1948.
The second thing, as the post points out, is that we have yet to evolve global political bodies of accountability and enforcement of progress to our ideals. Meanwhile, global capital is trying to bulldoze over civil society as we speak. It is easier for most to wrap our resistance strategy around localism and bio-regionalism, regeneration and repair. These efforts have a growing global network with potential for visionary consensus. But the race is on and we need to imagine the connecting bridges.
You say that “If the practice of any of these rights conflicts with cardinal human values, then the practice should be immediately curtailed.”
Can you delineate what are “cardinal human values? “
Yes, this is an important topic and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to repost the discussion of cardinal human values from an earlier article that mentioned this. From our January 20 post:
Cardinal Human Values
This social [imperative] rests on a value premise, one that proposes two “cardinal human values.” (The meaning space of “cardinal”, for those not familiar, incorporates elements of central, essential, of greatest importance, fundamental, vital, and so important as to be indispensable.)
What are these cardinal human values?
First, that there must be respect for all people — for all life, actually. (This doesn’t mean that we must respect all actions or beliefs or not protect ourselves from harm.)
Second, there must be a universal outlook in which the welfare of living beings is given a higher priority than personal desires.
If these two cardinal values are adopted within a society, then that society will naturally establish policies and programs — structural approaches — that reflect the depth and fullness of the human experience.
Such well written, thoughtful comments. I totally agree with the four foundational premises and would add to #3 universal healthcare.
With the word limit this substack maintains, sometimes points get left out. I'd like to take the opportunity in a response to Betsy to say that the intent of guaranteed purchasing capacity (ie, Principle #2) is that everyone would have the financial resources needed to obtain their necessities -- health care important among them.
Regarding health care, I suspect we're all in agreement that this would best be managed through some form of health care for all approach, as opposed to the individual health insurance system.
Look up Garry Davis. He was inspirational:
Garry Davis, a longtime peace advocate, former Broadway song-and-dance man and self-declared World Citizen No. 1, who is widely regarded as the dean of the One World movement, a quest to erase national boundaries.
Thanks for this, Suzanne. You are such a consumate connector.
I would say that nations could have their place, much as other political demarcations like states, counties, and municipalities do. I think the essential point is that, according to the principle of subsidiarity, certain matters are best managed by nations and other matters by a world government.
Thank you. I feel this article presents a vision that is not only necessary but inevitable if humanity is to move beyond the fragmented, crisis-driven approach that defines our current reality. The idea of a world political body rooted in neohumanist principles speaks to a deeper truth—our interconnectedness as living beings on this planet. Yet, the absence of a unifying structure that prioritizes life over profit, cooperation over competition, leaves us vulnerable to forces whose only allegiance is to power.
I especially resonate with the call for a life-centered constitution. Imagine a world where governance is not dictated by short-term political gains or corporate interests, but by the inherent dignity of all life. Where environmental protection, economic security, and cultural expression are not privileges but fundamental rights. Where communities can thrive with local autonomy while remaining part of a larger framework of planetary stewardship.
Of course, the challenge is not just in envisioning this reality, but in making it real. How do we transition from a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a few to one where decisions are made for the collective good? How do we prevent those with the most resources from shaping global governance to serve their own ends? These are questions I continue to ask myself.
If we are to build a world where core human and ecological values shape our institutions, I believe it must start with us—through advocacy, through education, through grassroots movements that refuse to accept the status quo. Change begins when people dare to believe that a better world is possible and take the steps, however small, to bring it into being.
This is something I am quickly coming to realize. The more I engage in these conversations and reflect on the world we are creating, the clearer it becomes that the responsibility is ours. If we do not take action, who will? If we do not insist on a future shaped by justice, sustainability, and cooperation, then it will be shaped by the unchecked interests of those who benefit from division and destruction. The path forward requires courage, vision, and a willingness to build something new—starting now.
Again thank you for creating this space.
Of course the question always arises, how do we get from here to there? While reading this I thought of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so I reviewed it too see if it is a jumping off point of values consensus. (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). What stands out is that it does not address the natural world - it is "humanist" whereas the principles raised here are inclusive of all life and the planet itself, therefore "neo-humanist." Rights of nature is becoming accepted and codified in many places around the world, so maybe we have made some evolutionary progress since 1948.
The second thing, as the post points out, is that we have yet to evolve global political bodies of accountability and enforcement of progress to our ideals. Meanwhile, global capital is trying to bulldoze over civil society as we speak. It is easier for most to wrap our resistance strategy around localism and bio-regionalism, regeneration and repair. These efforts have a growing global network with potential for visionary consensus. But the race is on and we need to imagine the connecting bridges.
Here is an important message from Joe Brewer about how we link up the global movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO8K585QNiY
John Lennon's "Imagine" comes to mind....
But with evil men in charge of most of the world, I find I simply can't 'imagine' pulling out of our current path of destruction in time.
Thank you for the glimpse of a possible recovery.
This was an excellent read! I agree with all of this! What a beautiful world it could be!