Illustration by Susanne Gold/ text by Ted Ganten
In this clip you will get more information on “Terraism”.

In Terraism Part I we defined the terraistic imperativ creating a ethical general rule. So what does that now mean for everyday live?

Are we the ultimate goal of evolution or even designed god-like?

If at the end of the formulation we refer to other people instead of living beings, we are again in a variant of humanism. Here it is assumed that all living beings have a comparable right to exist on our planet. The fact, that our talent for logical thinking, tool usage and communication are superior in comparison to other talents at this very moment of the evolution, does not justify to place us above other living beings. Other living beings also have unique abilities that are much superior to ours in certain circumstances, such as the relative strength of ants and the ultrasonic detection of dolphins and bats. Rather, our current, accidental, evolutionary advantage results in an increased responsibility towards other living beings on the spaceship. This includes looking for solutions that affect them as little as possible.

Let animate beings be

It seems impossible to protect all living creatures at the moment, due to our eating habits and our habitat. However, the imperative is to promote development in this direction. Cultivated meat cells and meat substitutes are already available, but currently a plaything of the industry. It should be an ethical mandate of civil society. The idea of using “living beings” rather than humans as a limit to the individual freedom of Homo Sapiens and other living beings also creates the bridge to include the future development of cyborgs, transgenic beings and artificial intelligence in particular. Man in his present form will be inferior to these future creatures. If we stick to our current ethics that the most powerful being on the ship is allowed to make the world its subject without restriction, then those future beings will be allowed to keep, control, eat and kill Homo Sapiens as we do with farm animals now. It is high time to give every living being an equal value.

Animial welfare vs. terraism

The terraistic imperative is not derived from the thought of the animal protection. On the contrary, a new ethical evaluation results in respect for all creatures as a reflex from the fact that Homo Sapiens will not be the superior being on the planet in the future. Terraism should not be reduced to the justification of vegan nutrition and animal protection. It remains however naturally correct that the new imperative calls for an increased respect for the planet and other creatures – besides Homo Sapiens. The positive ecological aspects of not eating or eating little meat give an extra push to the ethical imperative not to kill animals. Furthermore, from an ethical point of view, the way in which animals are kept would have to be ethically questioned. To put it crudely, it is, among other things, a call to seriously apply the simplified form of the categorical imperative “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” – not only between people, but also with regard to other living beings. Only if we now credibly lay the foundation for terraistic ethics will optimized humans in the near future have to put up with this question – also with regard to us “normal” humans. So, Terrraism is not primarily about changing our diet – it is more of a reflex because we do not want to end on the menu of Homo Deus.

The big picutre

This general attitude to understand the planet as a unit and life on it as a community of destiny with a common goal is what I call “Terraism”. The commandment of Terraism is to ensure the peaceful, non-discriminatory coexistence of all “living beings” on an adequate standard of living while preserving the planet, as well as to advance into space. The core statements of Terraismus in short:

Preservation of the planet as the highest commandment, respect for all living beings and the way into space as a common goal.

So, how does a terraistic association have to look like, be structured and which content does it have to drive to effect change. How do we avoid dropping  a brick and learn from mistakes? Next week we start zooming into certain aspects of realization …