Loving the Earth: Reimagining the Foundations of Ethics Beyond Humanity

Let us for a moment, forget about the existence of the future. Suspend, too, the assumption that “humanity” is a self-evident reality. Strip away the inherited layers of philosophy, law, religion, and ideology, and ask a more foundational question: Does humanity exist?

Not as a collection of individual humans—but as a singular entity, a cohesive “we,” something worthy of ethical commitment or emotional attachment. Is humanity a real thing, or merely an abstraction, a ghost conjured by imagination, a placeholder that never truly held form?

Historically, “humanity” has been invoked to inspire noble ideals—compassion, unity, universal rights—but also manipulated as an empty vessel into which selective agendas are poured. The notion remains poorly defined, floating between sentiment and statute. The very phrase “crime against humanity” was only minted after World War II, crafted as a legal innovation to prosecute unprecedented atrocities. Before that, civilizations invoked higher laws—not crimes against humanity, but crimes against God.

In fact, even today, many are punished or persecuted for transgressions framed as offenses against the divine. This continuity underscores a truth: ethical systems often rest upon constructs—God, the nation, humanity—that are not ontologically real, but symbolically powerful.

What if “humanity” was constructed to fill the vacuum left by a retreating God?

This is not a rhetorical flourish, but a deep ontological inquiry. In the framework explored in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, it is argued that instead of loving abstractions, we must reorient our ethical compass toward what undeniably exists: the Earth.

The Earth is not a metaphor. It is a living, breathing, complex system that sustains all known life. We know it exists; we stand upon it, drink its water, breathe its air. It is more than a backdrop—it is an actor, an entity, a home. And unlike “humanity,” the Earth has no ambiguity. It has boundaries. It can suffer. It can be healed.

Therefore, an ethical pivot is proposed: let us speak not only of love for humanity, but of love for the Earth. Let us define and operationalize concepts like crimes against the planet, crimes against nature, or even crimes against life itself. These are not symbolic phrases, but practical frameworks for a new planetary ethic.

To do so is not to abandon human dignity. It is to ground that dignity in the real. It is to affirm that our future—if there is one—depends not on the abstraction of humanity, but on our relationship with the living world that birthed and sustains us.

In this light, the future becomes not a linear projection of human goals, but a space of planetary stewardship. We don’t need faith in the future—we need fidelity to the Earth.

And in that fidelity, perhaps we may rediscover what it truly means to be human.

When Abstract Visions of the Futures Collide in Physical Space: A Case Study in Futures Studies

In the discipline of futures studies, preferred visions of the future often remain abstract—elaborate expressions of national aspirations, policy roadmaps, or ideological dreams. Yet occasionally, these imagined futures break through the boundaries of discourse and collide violently in the physical world, leading to devastating consequences. A striking case in point is the tragic unraveling of Iran’s Vision 2025 amid the outbreak of the Iran–Israel war in June 2025—a confrontation that starkly illustrates the friction between clashing futures.

Adopted in 2005 under a religiously driven leadership, Iran’s Vision 2025 laid out an ambitious roadmap: to become “a developed country that ranks first economically, scientifically and technologically in the region of Southwest Asia… with constructive and effective international interactions.” This was not merely a developmental blueprint but a symbolic assertion of Iran’s place in the regional and global order—a vision informed by Islamism values, anti-Western attitude, and aspirations for scientific leadership.

However, on June 13, 2025, the abstractions of this future were pierced by missiles and fire. Israel launched a surprise offensive against Iran, targeting its military and nuclear infrastructure. Less than ten days later, the United States—long aligned with Israeli strategic interests—escalated the conflict by striking three key Iranian nuclear sites. What was once a vision of regional leadership had become a battlefield. Vision 2025, as articulated two decades prior, was not merely delayed or challenged; it was decisively shattered in the material realm. This sequence of events is an undeniable instance of what can happen when competing abstract visions—each loaded with historical grievances, ideological fervor, and strategic anxieties—collide.

This breakdown serves as a warning to all foresight practitioners and policymakers: visions are not neutral. They are strategic. They are political. And they are often in tension with one another. The 2025 war exemplifies the danger of ignoring such tensions, assuming that visions can unfold linearly without resistance or conflict from other actors whose preferred futures may be fundamentally incompatible.

To systematically analyze such dynamics, the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi), a Washington DC-based think tank, has published a foresight-oriented report titled The Middle East and the United States: Scenarios for the Medium-Term Future until 2030. This study recommends cross-comparing the preferred futures of regional actors—including Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey—and external powers such as the United States and China. The methodology encourages researchers to map not only aspirations but also the strategic behavior likely to emerge when visions come into contact—cooperative or confrontational.

Ap-Fi’s scenario work proposes that rather than asking only “What is our preferred future?”, leaders and analysts must ask: “Whose future are we in conflict with?” In the Middle East, the convergence or collision of visions—whether economic (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030), ideological (e.g., Iran’s theocratic leadership), or strategic (e.g., Israel’s military doctrine)—shapes the region’s trajectory far more than the content of any single vision.

Looking beyond present and the Middle East, a looming question arises in the near future: what happens when the American and Chinese visions of the future collide as described in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics? With the U.S. championing a rules-based international order and China promoting a system with socialist modernization characteristics, the next major global flashpoint may arise not just from territorial disputes or military missteps, but from an irreconcilable clash between two vastly different conceptions of the future.

This is why future visioning must evolve. It must move from isolated idealism to comparative strategy. From internal policy documents to geopolitical foresight frameworks. And from static images to dynamic conflict anticipation.

In closing, the Iran–Israel war of 2025 is more than a tragic geopolitical escalation. It is a foresight lesson in real time: visions are powerful, but they are not insulated. When abstract dreams of the future are projected onto the same physical and political space without coordination or empathy, collision is not just possible—it is inevitable. Futures studies must be ready to anticipate, map, and mediate these collisions, if peace is to remain more than just a vision.

BushidoMoon: Celebrating the Planetary Foresight Under the Full Moon

By Steve Kantor*

In a world speeding toward hyper-digitization and disconnection, we need not only new technologies—but new rituals. Rituals that reawaken our connection to nature, the cosmos, and each other. This is exactly what we’re beginning to cultivate through an initiative called BushidoMoon—an experiment in planetary consciousness, seasonal celebration, and bold human connection.

The inspiration began with the visionary ideas presented in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, which calls us to reimagine the future of humanity by re-aligning with the rhythms of the Earth and cosmos. The book urges us to embrace celestial observations, seasonal celebrations, and nature-connected practices as powerful ways to regenerate human meaning and solidarity in a time of planetary crisis.

After reading the book and connecting with its author, I suggested the use of the term Terran—as a poetic yet powerful way to emphasize our shared identity as beings of this planet. But the next question was immediate and practical: how do we find more Terrans? How do we build not just the thought leadership, but the action network for this emerging planetary culture?

As someone with an entrepreneurial mindset, I realized the need for more grassroots, embodied, and joyful expressions of the book’s deeper vision. That's when I proposed something deceptively simple: a full moon gathering, small at first, playful yet meaningful, rooted in nature and inspired by the ancient warrior code of Bushido.

BushidoMoon was born.

We alpha- and beta-tested the idea in tiny groups. But it was on our third try—at the Strawberry Moon in June 2025—that the magic really happened. Fourteen individuals, from a wildly diverse range of backgrounds, joined us under the moonlight in Bishop Garden, one of the most scenic and sacred-feeling places in Washington, DC.

We shared a potluck dinner amid blooming flowers, green grass, and a warm spring breeze. We laughed. We made toasts. We talked about nature, ethics, the cosmos—and the kinds of futures we want to live. The author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics joined us and shared how the book presents an alternative to globalization: a planetary vision that prioritizes human flourishing over economic competition, and cosmic connectedness over digital distraction.

We ended the evening with a Human Connection Circle. Each person spoke one word to describe how they felt at that moment. Then, spontaneously and joyfully—we howled at the moon. Why? Because this wasn’t about solemn ceremonies or rigid beliefs. It was about celebrating life boldly, together, in the spirit of play.

And that, too, is a vital insight from Planetary Foresight and Ethics: that creative play, including with technology and AI, is not frivolous. It is central to the preferred futures of humanity. As automation liberates us from traditional labor, we are called to explore creative complexity, to blur the lines between reality and virtuality, and to experiment with new ways of being human.

BushidoMoon is one such experiment.

It’s an invitation to reconnect—with yourself, with others, with nature, with the cosmos. It is tech-facilitated but grounded in in-person humanity. It is bold, weird, warm, and wildly needed.

So here’s your call to action:

If you’d like to start a BushidoMoon in your city or country, or if you want to join a virtual circle, I would love to connect with you. Just send a note to the Contact Us button on this blog. Let’s gather under the next moon, wherever you are on Earth.


*Steve Kantor is a graduate of Harvard University and Johns Hopkins University. He is a member of the Scientific Council of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute, as well as a core leader in Lifebushido, a global initiative dedicated to bold living and ethical impact.

Reconstructing Rta: A Moral Compass for the Planetary Age

By Victor V. Motti*

The ancient Indo-Iranic conception of Rta (in the Vedic tradition) or Arta (in Avestan) is far more than a metaphysical relic from a forgotten past. It is a foundational idea of cosmic and moral order—a guiding light for navigating the deepest dilemmas of civilization. Today, we find ourselves amid cascading crises: ecological collapse, artificial general intelligence (AGI) disruption, and civilizational fragmentation. And yet, in this time of radical uncertainty, the ethical force of Rta remains alive, awaiting reinterpretation.

But relevance does not come from nostalgia. Rta must not be preserved—it must be recreated. To serve our planetary age, Rta must be reimagined in the light of modern theories of reality that incorporate evolutionary complexity, planetary systems thinking, and the unprecedented capacities of advanced AI.

 
1. Shared Heritage, Divergent Emphases

Rta is a shared civilizational root of the Indo-Iranic world. But while the Indo tradition leans toward an ethic of cosmic harmony and adaptation, the Iranic branch emphasizes thoughtful action and ethical intervention—an imperative to shape and improve the world.

This divergence holds profound meaning for today’s global civilization. Blind adaptation to ecological collapse or technological disruption—often endorsed by ecological fatalists or techno-determinists—is no virtue. Nor is the unanchored manipulation of nature defensible.

The Indo tradition reminds us of our place within a vast interdependent web; the Iranic tradition urges us to act, not drift. This dual insight is crucial: the future demands both cosmic humility and planetary responsibility.

 
2. From Metaphysics to Modern Ethics

At its core, Rta never split nature from morality. It was a unified principle of truth, rightness, and order. Yet modern science, in its pursuit of objectivity, often excised ethics as extraneous—leaving us with a powerful toolkit but no moral compass.

This division is no longer tenable. In an age of climate emergency, synthetic biology, and AGI, scientific knowledge devoid of ethical grounding is not just incomplete—it is dangerous.

It is time for science to reclaim moral authority—not from religious dogma, but through planetary foresight and participatory ethics. Here, Rta offers a model: a seamless integration of understanding what is with knowing what ought to be.

 
3. Contextual Ethics: Harmony and Intervention

Rta is not a rigid code—it is a dynamic method of discernment. It invites us to toggle between harmony and intervention, depending on context.

Consider COVID-19: Should we have “lived in harmony” with a virus that devastated millions of lives? Clearly not. The ethical course was resistance, coordination, and preservation of life. Rta called not for passive adaptation but for intelligent protection of human continuity.

Now take space exploration: does it make sense to send human bodies into hostile environments, or should we deploy AI-augmented probes and robotics? Rta advises humility and wisdom. Human exceptionalism must not override cosmic realism.

Conversely, take the opportunity to build a Planetary Grid—a civilization-scale solar energy system to harvest the sun’s power. This is not a violation of cosmic order—it is its fulfillment. It reflects the ethical maturation of a planetary species ready to co-create responsibly with nature.

 
4. The AGI Dilemma: Restraint or Acceleration?

AGI poses perhaps the thorniest ethical puzzle of our time. Should we accelerate AGI development to maintain global leadership and avoid falling behind authoritarian regimes? Or should we decelerate, fearing mass unemployment, the erosion of human agency, or even existential risk?

Rta does not issue commandments. It demands deep foresight, inclusive debate, and moral clarity.

Is mass automation that displaces millions of workers ethical? Perhaps not. But is failing to lead in AGI and ceding the future to opaque, coercive powers more unethical?

There are no easy answers. But Rta provides a method: pluralistic moral inquiry grounded in the unity of cosmic order and ethical responsibility. It refuses both relativism and dogma, offering a mature, evolving moral grammar for planetary life.

 
5. A Call for Planetary Foresight and Moral Leadership

Our crisis is not merely technological—it is civilizational. The stakes are no longer regional or national. We are all passengers on one planetary ship hurtling through an indifferent cosmos. Our future depends on whether we can develop a shared grammar of foresight—a new Rta.

This new Rta calls for:

1. Scientists and technologists to engage not just in research, but in ethical reasoning. Integration of natural and ethical laws is key here; which is fundamental and rather trivial in some non-Western civilization.
2. Political leaders to convene open, participatory forums on AGI, climate adaptation, and planetary infrastructure.
3. Faith and cultural institutions must evolve from parochial dogmas toward planetary ethics grounded in evolutionary complexity.

Rta does not ask us to surrender to the tides of change. Nor does it invite hubris to dominate nature without consequence. It calls us to co-create with cosmic intelligence—to act boldly, ethically, and with foresight.

Let Rta be our guide—not as a relic, but as a living compass. Let it speak across traditions, across disciplines, across civilizations. For in Rta lies the wisdom to navigate our dangerous freedoms and our infinite possibilities. Let us reconstruct it—not in stone, but in vision.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

Rta as a Dynamic Compass: Planetary Foresight and Ethics

In times of upheaval—whether from microscopic viruses or galactic ambitions—the question of how we respond ethically becomes paramount. One ancient yet enduring principle that helps navigate these crossroads is Rta, the Indo-Iranic concept of cosmic and moral order. Yet Rta is not a monolithic code; it is a dynamic compass, one that calls for discernment, flexibility, and responsiveness to context. It can inspire resistance or humility, activism or restraint—depending on what is required to preserve harmony and dignity.

Let us begin with a clear example from recent history: the COVID-19 pandemic. Some voices, often cloaked in a distorted sense of ecological purity, argued for "living in harmony" with the virus—as though accepting mass death and societal breakdown was somehow aligned with nature. But such a view betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Rta. Rta does not demand passive acceptance of all that occurs in nature. On the contrary, when nature’s unfolding becomes destructive to the integrity of life, Rta calls for resistance. To allow the virus to spread unimpeded is to betray our duty to protect human life, health, and civilization.

In this sense, ethical action—rooted in the deeper logic of Rta—means resisting the virus. Science, public policy, and collective responsibility become instruments of moral order. They are tools by which we counterbalance the disharmony introduced by the pandemic. Here, Rta emerges as an activist cosmology: one where humans do not simply submit to what is, but rise to uphold what ought to be. It is a worldview that understands human agency not as domination but as responsibility—a moral duty to protect and preserve life.

Now shift the scene from the biological to the cosmic. Consider the ambitions of space agencies like NASA, with their aspirations for human colonization of the Moon, Mars, and beyond. At first glance, such ventures seem noble—extending the human story across the stars. But under closer ethical scrutiny, they raise deep questions. The vast financial costs, extreme risks, and inhospitable conditions of space suggest that such efforts may not align with Rta. Here, Rta may be calling not for action, but for restraint.

Rather than pushing the fragile human body into hostile environments, Rta might instead guide us toward a more harmonious path: sending autonomous, AI-enabled systems to explore and build. These non-biological agents can extend our presence without violating the delicate balance between aspiration and humility. In this vision, Rta becomes an ecological cosmology—one that emphasizes resonance with cosmic reality rather than conquest over it. The future is not abandoned, but recalibrated. Technological progress continues, but in alignment with limits rather than in defiance of them.

These contrasting examples—the pandemic and the space program—highlight the fluid power of Rta. It is not an absolutist doctrine. Rather, it is a moral orientation that shifts based on context, inviting us to evaluate when to resist and when to yield, when to act and when to defer. This nuance becomes even clearer when we examine the broader cultural spectrum of Rta’s interpretation.

In South Asian worldviews, Rta is often aligned with the acceptance of limits and the wisdom of surrender. It teaches us to discern when our desires clash with the deeper rhythms of the cosmos. This orientation favors humility, even in imagining the posthuman future. It suggests that we might not be destined to dominate the stars, but to find more integrated, less anthropocentric ways of relating to the universe.

In contrast, West Asian traditions, especially those influenced by Promethean lineages, often view Rta as a call to transform, even to defy. Here, the drive is to reshape nature, overcome death, and engineer the next evolutionary leap—transhumans, cyborgs, and space-faring humans. This Promethean vision sees the cosmos as a challenge to be met, not a rhythm to be joined.

These divergent views are not opposites in conflict, but expressions along a continuum. A wise framing of Rta attempts to hold both perspectives in productive tension. Rta is neither total surrender nor total domination. It is a compass—one that demands context-specific discernment, ethical creativity, and humility before the complexity of life.

Ultimately, to invoke Rta today is to affirm that we are not mere spectators of the universe, nor its unchallenged rulers. We are ethical participants in its unfolding. Whether resisting a deadly virus or reimagining space exploration, we are called to act—not based on abstract ideals or blind instincts, but through thoughtful alignment with the ever-evolving order of life. That is the enduring gift of Rta: a guide for futures that are not only possible, but also just.

Consciousness Debate in Psychomathematical Perspective

In most contemporary debates surrounding the emergence of consciousness—whether in philosophy, neuroscience, or AI ethics—the discussion remains locked within the framework of the human individual or, at best, the planetary scale. Consciousness is generally assumed to be a byproduct of complex neurobiology or information processing systems. But what if this assumption itself is too anthropocentric, too confined to Earth-bound logics and timelines?

There exists a possibility—largely absent from mainstream discourse—that consciousness might be emerging on a far larger galactic scale prior to the human or individual scale. This idea is explored in greater depth in the recent article "The Cosmic Web and Consciousness" and further unpacked in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics. This hypothesis reorients our understanding of cosmic evolution: instead of viewing consciousness as an accidental emergent property of terrestrial brains, we might consider it an underlying pattern or tendency in the very fabric of the cosmos—emerging first in galactic structures, then cascading down to planetary and biological forms.

This shift in perspective raises a profound question: could consciousness be a structural feature of the universe itself, embedded in the logic of geometry and mathematics, rather than a product of biological or physical mechanics? In this view, consciousness is not generated by matter but rather revealed through specific geometric alignments, thresholds, and transitions. Ancient Indo-Iranic traditions may have intuited this truth. The recurring attention to planetary alignments, most notably in the grand pilgrimage of Kumbh Mela, reflects a cultural memory that certain cosmic configurations are not merely symbolic but potentially catalytic—triggering deeper layers of awareness, communion, or transformation.

From this vantage, the hard problem of consciousness (HP)—why and how subjective experience arises—might not be resolved through physicalist explanations at all. Instead, the answer could reside in a geometric insight or a yet-unknown mathematical theorem that underlies what the Indo-Iranic traditions called Rta (or Arta)—the cosmic order that sustains truth, harmony, and right action. Rta was never a passive natural law; it was a dynamic equilibrium, a rhythmic balance that governed both the stars and the soul.

What if Rta is not just a spiritual metaphor, but a real geometric order—one whose logic binds the galactic structure to the awakening of consciousness? In that case, mathematics—not physics—would be the true root of our universe. We would not inhabit a psychophysical reality (where mind emerges from matter), but a psychomathematical one (where mind and matter alike emerge from the unfolding of fundamental mathematical forms). In such a cosmos, transitions of awareness—personal or planetary—are not random but determined by the deeper architecture of number, ratio, and form.

This line of thought encourages a bold rethinking of both science and spirituality. It unites Indo-Iranic cosmology with cutting-edge theoretical speculation. And perhaps most critically, it invites us to widen the scope of the consciousness debate—moving beyond neural circuits and digital minds, and toward the possibility that consciousness is a property of the universe at large, waiting to be decoded not through code or chemicals, but through geometry, alignment, and foresight.

Such a reorientation may not only illuminate the ancient mystery of consciousness—it might just provide the key to our planetary and post-planetary ethical evolution.

Rta and the Civilizational Choice

By Victor V. Motti*

In the vast spectrum of civilizational thought, there are two starkly divergent visions of our collective future—so far apart, they are not simply different shades of optimism or pessimism. Rather, they are polar opposites in worldview and intent.

On one end of the spectrum are those who limit their imagination to the confines of Earth—its dwindling resources, geopolitical turmoil, and environmental degradation. Their forecasts are not just cautious; they are cloaked in a deep skepticism about human ingenuity and cosmic possibility. They urge reduction: in ambition, in scale, in complexity. Their caution can masquerade as wisdom, but at its core, it often carries a quiet surrender.

On the other end are those who entertain the audacity of a Type II Civilization—a society not bound to Earth, but one that draws energy from its entire solar system, that treats planetary limitations not as destiny but as an invitation to evolve. This view is rooted not in naïve optimism but in a profound civilizational confidence: that humanity can rise to meet the scale of cosmic order, not diminish itself in fear of the future.

This divergence in planetary vision also echoes across deep time. For me, the question of "changing the world" only becomes meaningful within a very ancient and long horizon—one in which ethics, cosmology, and foresight are not separate domains but entangled.

The Indo-Iranic traditions offer a profound framework to hold this vision: Rta (or Arta), the cosmic order. Rta is not simply a religious or mythological principle. It is a metaphysical fusion of natural law and moral order—an indivisible whole where truth, harmony, and right action are inseparable. In the Western Asian lineage of this tradition, aligned closely with Zoroastrianism, the ethical imperative is to actively bring the world into greater harmony with Rta through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. It is a call to act.

In contrast, the South Asian lineage, influenced by the Vedic and Dharmic traditions, recognizes Rta as an eternal order with which one must harmonize, rather than reshape. Here, the ethical burden is to attune, not to impose. Striving against Rta brings disorder and suffering.

Across history, humanity has embodied both impulses: the noble desire to restore cosmic order, and the tragic overreach of those who mistake domination for alignment. Which are we today—true agents of Rta, or disturbers cloaked in good intent?

This question matters deeply as we stand at the precipice of deciding our energy future. The current discourse is often trapped in binaries: fossil fuels vs renewables, degrowth vs endless consumption, survival vs collapse. But these frames miss a deeper opportunity—to ask not only what energy systems we pursue, but why and how they align with the deeper rhythm of Rta.

In my book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, I introduce a modern term that serve as a bridge between this ancient principle and contemporary innovation: creative complexity. This term reflects the evolving dance between technological potential and ethical awareness. Just as Rta binds natural law to ethical conduct, this modern principle recognizes that our innovations must be rooted in a deeper moral ecology.

The fact that many of us, now older than thirty, do not live lives that are nasty, brutal, sick, and short, is an undeniable testament to humanity’s progress. It does not mean we are perfect, but it does mean that the arc of civilization can bend toward betterment—when aligned with the right principles.

Perhaps the answer is not to wholly embrace action or retreat into passivity, but to cultivate discernment. To know when to act boldly and when to yield humbly. To expand civilization in ways that restore rather than disrupt the deeper cosmic balance.

With this discernment, we can move beyond the false dichotomy of optimism and pessimism. We can become planetary beings who do not merely survive within Earth’s limits, but who responsibly evolve into stewards of energy, order, and ethics across spacetime.

That is not only possible—it is, I believe, our cosmic responsibility.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics