THE JOY OF LIFE
social desire.
137
As we begin to understand ‘nature’ as a process of natural
evolution, we recognize the ethical implications of the idea of ‘nature’ as
flowing out of the idea of evolution itself.
Locating humanity within natural evolution raises an ethical question:
what is humanity’s role within the process of natural evolution? If humanity has
the potential to build upon this evolutionary trend toward complexity, ought it
to do so? Again, we might ask, is it equally rational for societies to reverse this
evolutionary trend by institutionalizing hierarchical social relationships based
on command and control, while also undoing horizons of biological and
cultural differentiation or diversity? In turn, is it equally ‘rational’ for humanity
to reverse the developmental directionality of natural evolution, a trend that
has led from simple unicellular organisms to increasingly complex species,
from consciousness to self-consciousness, from simple to more complex
expressions of subjectivity? As social ecology illustrates, this reversal is irrational
for it contradicts the developmental logic of natural evolution itself.
The ecological principles of mutualism, differentiation, and development
provide a set of criteria by which to measure the ethical validity of human
action. Again, as social ecology shows, humanity ought to further this trend
toward increasing mutualism, differentiation, and development and that, in
contrast, it is irrational to counter this evolutionary trend. We may assert that
the social desire to create cooperative institutions and social practices is ethical
and rational because such practices further the trend in natural evolution
toward ever greater levels of mutualism, differentiation, and developmental
complexity that provide the basis for natural evolution itself.
For instance, the practice of direct democracy requires and enhances
degrees of mutualism, differentiation, and development more than does the
practice of representational democracy. Direct democracy is a process in which
members of a local community are empowered to participate directly in
creating the public policy that gives shape to their everyday lives, both public
and private. Unlike a representational democracy in which citizens elect a
centralized body of ‘politicians’ who make decisions on their behalf, a direct
democracy is one in which decision-making power is decentralized among
citizens themselves.14
A direct democracy supports the principle of mutualism or non-hierarchy
by creating a forum in which an entire community is engaged in participating
cooperatively to discuss, debate, and determine public policies.
Direct
democracy draws from the principle of differentiation or social complexity by
encouraging a rich process of pubic discussion in which a diversity of
perspectives are presented and considered. Difference of opinion is welcomed
as members of a community continually work to nuance and complexify their
understanding of freedom. The process of self-reflection, tire give and take of