my Quotes & Aphorisms

Neuro-Techno-Philosophy

In the future, robots with advanced moral competencies could transform security dynamics plus how we regard ourselves as humans. Leading thinkers focused on the ethical implications of new types of warfare will need to tackle issues on the cusp of AI, neuroscience and philosophy.

By understanding our Emotions, neurochemical motivations, neurobehavioral needs and the neuropsychological underpinning of States’ Behaviour, we are better placed to successfully navigate challenges posed by contemporary Geopolitics and GlobalSecurity.

NeuroTechnoPhilosophy could improve Conflict Resolution, which rarely includes neuroscientific/philosophical insights. On battlefields, interventions to make soldiers feel less empathy and fear will rewire the human condition and have serious implications for how wars are fought.

Egoism, emotionality play a bigger role in war than we know/admit. Pride, grief, contempt, hate and shame have influenced human history. As AI and Human Enhancement evolve, they will be used to enhance soldiers, leading to a step-change in the brutality and illegitimacy-of-war.

The Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz saw uncertainty and fear as essential ingredients of war. But how does Human Fallibility, at the core of classic theories of war dating back to Sun Tzu, play out when AI-Military Technologies remove human qualities from battle?

Will AI and other disruptive technologies, deepen the fog of war and change the nature of war?
Will the extreme brutality enabled by these technologies create multi-generational hate, vengeance, deep ethnic, cultural schisms and hinder reconciliation, reconstruction and coexistence?

Behaviour is less defined by rationality than emotionality (which is central to Cognitive Function and Rational Decision Making). We are not moral or immoral but amoral and influenced by personal/political circumstances Our Moral Compass is governed by “Perceived Emotional Self Interest”.

History shows that Hegemonic States will weaponize everything to dominate others, in an exploitative/extractive way. Humans’ appetite for Primordial Power (at Individual, Group and State Level) is part of Innate Predispositions. Justice and Fair Play rarely govern Interstate Relations.

Humans are predisposed for survival, thus fundamentally egoistic. This evolutionary desire to survive and thrive, with constant competition, mistrust, fear, is what inspires domination. Power Craving is linked to Neurochemicals in the Mesolimbic-Reward Centre of the brain.

There are important Neurobiological links between Emotions and Decision Making, with profound consequences for international relations and a peaceful global order. Emotionality infuses unpredictability into human affairs and can be at the root of state and sub-state conflicts.

Bertrand Russell noted in ‘Has Man A Future?’ on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis, how “pride, arrogance and fear of loss of face have obscured the power of judgment” of Kennedy and Khrushchev. Like Humans, States are Egoistic, Survival Driven and influenced by Interests/Perceptions.

Enhancements may boost cognitive/physical capabilities, but they diminish features like compassion and empathy, which have been pivotal to human survival and cooperation, with dire consequences for ethical/humanitarian calculations during combat and for diplomacy/statecraft.

Robots/Sophisticated humanoids with advanced competencies could transform Security Dynamics, Civil Military Relations and how we regard ourselves as humans. Leading thinkers focused on the ethics of new warfare, will need to add transdisciplinary tools to their intellectual armoury.

Enhanced Weapons, Super Soldiers and new biological weapons will fall outside existing ethical, customary and legal norms of warfare, as defined by International Law and the Geneva Conventions. This raises important questions for lawyers and Policymakers about questions of responsibility.

Questions of law, Competition and Cascading Risks will become prominent as states/societies respond to challenges of disruptive technologies. This is especially true for Self-Evolving/Runaway-AI weapon systems, which could rewrite own Source Code and beyond Human Control/Oversight.

Unequal access to Disruptive Military Technologies will be reflected in competition and shifts in balance of political/economic power. Asymmetries of capabilities will exacerbate vulnerabilities, hegemonic brutality, illegitimacy in war and perpetual insecurity/conflict/instability.

Given that neuro-techno-philosophy addresses the implications of future developments, its approach is anticipatory. In contrast to neurophilosophy, which focuses on the human mind and nature as they are, neuro-techno-philosophy examines the human mind and nature as they will be.

A thorough understanding of future developments demands a much closer collaboration between philosophers and scientists, with each party having a certain degree of competence in the other's field. Knowledge of our current best science grounds philosophers' pursuit of meaning, just as a familiarity with the method of philosophical reflection enriches scientists' empirical investigation.

The next era, characterized by transhumanism and runaway technologies, calls for urgent foresight in the field of public policy. This task requires highly trained thinkers to help humanity collectively progress in peace, security, knowledge, and prosperity. The importance of this task is why society requires philosophers to embrace neuro-techno-philosophy as part of philosophy's future.

To tackle intractable philosophical problems and public policy, thinkers need to connect (neuro)science, technology and philosophy (I termed this NeuroTechnoPhilosophy). Rapid technological advances have rewired the relationship between philosophy and science

Philosophers should acquaint themselves with transdisciplinary frameworks ( #NeuroTechnoPhilosophy) and scientific and technological developments. these will help ground philosophers’ pursuit of meaning while philosophical reflection enriches empirical investigation of scientists.

In philosophy today, there is an increased realization of the critical value of transdisciplinary approaches to problem-solving and scholarly innovation. 

#NeuroTechnoPhilosophy is the transdisciplinary endeavor of philosophers, (neuro)scientists and others to anticipate societal implications of impending transformations of subjects / theorizers and to engage with these game-changing innovations, critical for the future of philosophy.

Despite philosophy's long history and philosophers' tendency to reflect on their own discipline, it is difficult to establish what philosophy is and what it strives for. As Bertrand Russell argued, to define philosophy “is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude”.

We may improve our grasp of a concept through comparisons and delimitation. In the case of philosophy, it has proven instructive to examine its relationship to other sciences, in particular those involving empirical methods.

Philosophy and science are united in their methodological rigor and their desire to understand the world. This methodological and motivational unity gives rise to a dynamic by which progress in one domain acts as a catalyst for progress in the other.

Scientific discoveries invite philosophical reflections on their implications for our understanding of the world, just as philosophers' concepts and questions offer insight and inspiration for further scientific research.

Darwin's Evolutionary Theory naturalized Hom Sapiens as one species in a broader family of living things. The 2nd insight was produced in the 1950s by the interdisciplinary movement of philosophy, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, computer science and neuroscience.

Modern technologies have begun to change the well-established dynamic between philosophy and science. We may expect neuroscientific progress and disruptive technologies to transform radically the core of the project of comprehending ourselves, the world, and our place in it.

Various interventions in the brain will likely enable us to substantially change the human mind and human nature. Our reasoning capacities will be improved by Enhancement Technologies and AI-Machines will have the potential to become reflective entities like us or even better.

I argue that such changes to the subject matter and theorizers demand a novel type of inquiry, which I have called NeuroTechnoPhilosophy. This framework will enable philosophers to shape Public Policy and discourse, given their long-standing tradition of thorough Reflection.

Some philosophers are sceptical about the relevance of descriptive/empirical insights for prescriptive/normative issues. Hume observed a difference between what is and what ought to be, and the latter cannot be derived from the former without an account of how this gap is to be bridged.

On empirical facts and normative theories: First, moral, social and political philosophers often argue for their positions from premises that assume a specific account of human nature. Second, the is-ought problem is related to the broadly accepted dictum that ought implies can.

Concerning the question of Human Motivation, I have offered an account of motives that I take to be powerful and reliable in eliciting Sustainable Neurochemical Gratification. We are motivated primarily by what I call the NeuroP5: Power, Profit, Pleasure, Pride and Permanency.

My view of Human Nature is that MOST of us, MOST of the time, are Emotional Amoral Egoists and the Moral Compass is MOSTLY governed by "PERCEIVED Emotional Self-Interest”. This is not a pessimistic view, but a pragmatic one, given the historical record and neuroscientific insights.

When Moritz Schlick contemplated the future of philosophy a century ago, he anticipated the interaction between philosophy and science. While philosophers and scientists have a common aim of understanding the world, science seeks the truth, whereas philosophy pursues meaning.

The sciences' increasing interest in questions previously considered purely philosophical does not, however, signal that philosophy is irrelevant or that it is completely decoupled from science. As Schlick emphasizes, the opposite is true.

By clarifying meaning of propositions, asking challenging questions and reflecting on new insights, philosophers provide essential guidance to discourse in the scientific/public/personal spheres. Thus, the historical divergence of philosophy and science is replaced by a convergence.

NeuroTechnoPhilosophers face the prospect that Cognitive Enhancements will inform and reform the quest for meaning; This changes the subject matter and the theorizer. Enhanced scholars and AI/Hybrid entities will challenge past philosophical theorizing and revise claims and concepts.

Given that NeuroTechnoPhilosophy (NTP) addresses the implications of future developments, its approach is anticipatory. Unlike neurophilosophy, which focuses on the human mind and nature as they are, NTP examines (among other things) the human mind and nature as they will/could be.

The transdisciplinary of NTP, demands a closer collaboration between philosophers and scientists. Knowledge of Scientific Innovations grounds philosophers' pursuit of meaning and familiarity with methods of Philosophical Reflection enriches scientists' empirical investigation.

Conducting experiments is integral to Experimental Philosophy, but NTP does not expect philosophers to change methods or be Scientific. NTP is non-reductive and rejects the idea that science alone can solve challenges sparked by Transformative Neuroscience and Disruptive Technologies.

The next era, characterized by Transhumanism and Runaway Technologies, calls for urgent foresight in Public Policy and requires highly trained transdisciplinary thinkers (like the NTP framework), to guide humanity's future to sustainable peace, knowledge and prosperity FOR ALL.

Civilisation Frontier Risks

In an interdependent world plagued by dogged rivalries and dangerous frontier risks, global security can no longer afford to only focus on national security at the detriment of transnational, human, environmental and transcultural dimensions of security. All five dimensions are paramount for peaceful and prosperous global order.

Our world is becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent due to the unprecedented exponential growth of various transformative technologies. This carries significant benefits but also some risks. It is our duty to harness our progress towards combating and mitigating these risks.

Three major and likely frontier risks stand out in particular over the next two decades: he next bio-catastrophe, Cyber-meltdown, and conflict in outer space.

We are entering a new era of multiple frontier risks, like disruptive / runaway technologies and complex geopolitical crises. To remain on the front foot, the world requires symbiotic foresight in public policy and highly trained multidisciplinary thinkers who can connect the dots.

Sustainable Governance

From civilisational frontier risks associated with new challenges like disruptive technologies, to the shifting nature of great-power conflicts and subversion, the 21st century requires a new approach to statecraft.

Numerous forms of marginalisation or exclusion exist in liberal democracies, the mere existence of political rights does not guarantee a dignified life. It is critical for leaders and governments everywhere to give due attention to dignity as a central focus in policy-making. Failure to do so is bound to accelerate social unrest and destabilise domestic social and political order, and ultimately global order.

Concerning my book ‘Sustainable History and Human Dignity’

My book ‘Sustainable History and Human Dignity’ is a Philosophy of History which explores the ever-present TENSION/imbalance between:
3 fundamental aspects of Human Nature
Vs.
9 human Dignity Needs,
With implications for humanity’s sustainable Peace and Prosperity FOR ALL.

I wrote ‘Sustainable History and Human Dignity’ to pinpoint the prerequisites for lasting improvement in the human condition,
that would allow us to overcome the greatest obstacles facing humanity.

I wanted to offer a fresh way of conceiving history that draws on cutting-edge transdisciplinary research, including neuroscience,
to plug the gap between the study of our shared history/future as ONE human civilization and holistic human dignity needs, worth, recognition.

At its core, my philosophy is about a relentless tug-of-war between:
THREE human nature attributes (emotionality, amorality, egoism)
and
NINE human dignity needs (reason, security, human rights, accountability, transparency, justice, opportunity, innovation, inclusiveness).

In a connected/interdependent world, individual and collective dignity deficits, fuel contempt and turbulence.
If these needs are met, our neurochemically-mediated emotions and motivations will promote social cohesion and cooperative behavior
If not, the opposite is likely to happen.

This book, and my work more broadly, applies frameworks from Neuroscience, Philosophy, International relations, Geostrategy, Applied History and Disruptive Technologies in a Transdisciplinary way, to holistically tackle a variety of important existential and practical questions.

To shield humanity against Frontier Complex Risks, I have suggested a transdisciplinary framework, which I called Neuro-Techno-Philosophy, to bring philosophers, scientists, neuroscientists, AI experts and others to anticipate the societal implications of impending transformations.

By removing disciplinary barriers that traditionally created intellectual silos between history and natural sciences,I wanted this book to redefine the philosophy of history. I also wanted to breathe new life into dusty debates on Statecraft, Security and Justice(key to lasting progress)

Building on my previous work in transdisciplinary philosophy, this book cemented the idea that sustainable history and civilizational success will only be attained, if a comprehensive vision of security is adopted, with justice (minimally defined as fairness) for all, at its core.

This book reinforced my theory that while driving forces in history are rooted in human nature, how they shape history depends on our immediate environment (personal and political), innate predilections due to challenges faced by early humans are critical for our present/future.

The key takeaway is that to truly unleash the best in cooperative and peaceful human behavior, we must break away from binary Zero-sum paradigms and narrow, short-sighted geopolitical goals, towards Multi-sum and Symbiotic Realism, win-win, Nonconflictual Competition and Absolute Gains.

I point to the positive interactions and mutual borrowing between different cultures/subcultures throughout history. Despite conflicts, I want my writing to help us focus on humanity’s untapped potential by reminding us of the frequent positive/hopeful moments between global cultures.

These historical synergies were especially apparent between Greek and Arab cultures as well as between Arab culture and Europe. The former preserved and advanced critical Greek knowledge while the latter was pivotal in sparking the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.

If humanity unshackles itself from deeply embedded cultural hierarchies and exploitative paradigms of hegemony, we will be on course to achieving sustainable peace, security and prosperity FOR ALL. I will be happy if my work edges us closer to this reality, even if by a little bit.

Human Enhancement & Neuromodulation

Without strict regulations, brain implants and other Human Enhancement can lead us into a dystopian world. Brain implants may threaten our dignity and authenticity, and change what it means to be human.

Already-fragile notions of meritocracy would be undermined as a result of neuromodulation and cognitive enhancement, and education systems would struggle to fairly reward high achievers.

Unless it’s being used for debilitating neuro-cognitive deficits, neuromodulation of behavior equates to a kind of self-deception, with a concomitant loss of free will. And enacted consistently over time, these actions could in principle interfere with or even conflict with any coherent sense of identity.

It is ironic and indeed counterintuitive that our own human nature has a huge potential to drive us towards physical and cognitive enhancements that may completely alter the characteristics of our species.

This radical human metamorphosis and enhancement (physical and cognitive), through the convergence of various emerging strategic technologies, is not a question of ‘if’ but of ‘when’, ‘how’, and "at what cost".

It is urgent to enact stringent regulations to protect neurodata and neurorights, thus safeguarding human agency and ethical norms.

Human Enhancement is no longer limited to the realms of science fiction. We must protect our Neuro Rights with stringent regulations, without stifling innovation.

Human nature makes us perpetually dissatisfied with our present condition. We want to improve the most important thing in our lives: ourselves. Our very neurochemical composition makes us want to perfect ourselves.

While processes such as human enhancement are likely to irreversibly change what it means to be human, disruptive technologies may lead to the emergence of artificial intelligent agents and human-machine hybrids. This will impact how we view ourselves, the world and our place in it 

Power

When left unchecked, the egoistic character of human nature will entail a relentless search for the consolidation of power.

The neurochemistry of power has implications for politics and for political change. The sudden withdrawal of power, like the abrupt withdrawal from drugs, produces uncontrollable cravings. Therefore, those who possess power, especially absolute power, are highly unlikely to give it up willingly and without human and material loss.

"Just Power" includes considerations of fairness and regard for international law and norms. Power that manifests itself in dominating ways and fails to respect the dignity of individuals is inherently unstable.

Understanding the emotionality as well as the rationality of states will help us unleash the best in cooperative, peaceful human and state behavior.

New insights from neuroscience have given us a better understanding of the building blocks shaping human behaviour. To fully understand the balance between rationality and emotionality within interstate/transnational affairs, we need to get to grips with key tenets of human nature.

Emotional Amoral Egoism helps shed light on how emotions can shape and sabotage political processes. I argue that we are emotional amoral egoist: our traits are determined by personal and political circumstances + survival instincts, experienced on an emotional level.

The international system can be characterised by a relentless tug-of-war between: 3 human nature attributes (emotionality/amorality/egoism) and 9 human dignity needs (reason/security/human rights/accountability/transparency/justice/opportunity/innovation/inclusiveness).

In an interdependent, highly connected world, individual + collective dignity deficits fuel contempt and turbulence. If these needs are met, our neurochemically-mediated emotions and motivations will promote cooperative non-conflictual behavior. If not, the opposite will happen.

Humanity must find ways to mitigate against excessive emotionality and conflict in international affairs. Our best hope for a peaceful and prosperous world lies in pragmatic, win-win, non-conflictual competition and absolute gains rooted in Symbiotic Realism and Multi Sum Security.

Dignity Needs

Fundamental freedoms, such as the right to privacy, will be threatened by large scale data collection and new methods of surveillance.

Big data triggers human security risks by endangering individuals’ privacy and civil liberties.

Big data is here to stay, and its utilization could be extremely useful in predicting risks, but it is critical to address privacy concerns and guard against compromising civil liberties.

While global poverty has shown some positive trends, domestic inequalities are approaching near-all-time-highs in many of the major economies.

To tackle the surveillance capabilities amplified by new technologies, we need to move towards a ‘social contract 2.0’. This means establishing an imperative to enhance constitutional guarantees and the protection of freedoms, rights and human dignity.

In the absence of institutional structures that guarantee widespread stability and opportunity, individuals will most likely pursue self-maximizing benefits, further deepening trends toward inequality and injustice.

Fear and humiliation, which are unavoidable in extreme poverty and/or situations of political disempowerment, will consolidate learning mechanisms that promote defensive postures and mistrust.

Inequality, disempowerment and divisive politics have security implications within and beyond national borders, even if they take longer to manifest.

If dignity needs are met, and are linked to the right background conditions, our neurochemically-mediated emotions will promote social cohesion and cooperative behavior.

Evidence from previous experiments indicates the potential for universal basic income to increase all five neuropsychological indicators of a healthy society – security, agency, connection, trust and meaning.

Even in the most mature liberal democracies, political freedom coexists with alienation, discrimination, injustice and marginalization. People can therefore have ample freedoms and at the same time be severely disempowered.

To create the premises for peace and harmony, both domestically and internationally, it is important to account for the fragility in our nature and build accountable institutions that guarantee human dignity for all, at all times and under all circumstances.

Dignity is more than the absence of humiliation. It is the presence of a comprehensive, equitable, inclusive, and sustainable understanding of governance, prosperity, peace and security. These fundamental dignity needs are: reason, security, human rights, accountability, transparency, justice, opportunity, innovation and inclusiveness. They correlate and balance the three attributes of human nature: emotionality, amorality, and egoism.

Human agency is preserved in two ways. Metaphysically, it is preserved by the denial of directional history or other modes of determinism. Politically, it is preserved through robust protections for the dignity of all persons in all circumstances.

Global cultural understanding and respect for human dignity for all, at all times and under all circumstances, is not just a noble moral goal but an essential pre-requisite for the national interest.

For many, behavioural screening is an outright expression of Orwellian scenarios, frighteningly intrusive and infringing on privacy and civil liberties.

Guaranteeing dignity for all, at all times and under all circumstances, is inclusive of all democratic principles in the first place, while simultaneously addressing inequality, something most liberal democracies tackle insufficiently.

Dignity is much more than just the opposite of humiliation and includes nine governance-based substrates.

In order to ensure functional social orders, it is crucial that gratification is linked to constructive behaviour, such as social responsibility, work ethic, lawfulness, empathy, tolerance and mutual respect.

The claim of sweeping authority over the right to collect personal data is harmful to core liberties. Overseeing the overseers and keeping states’ need to know in balance with the safeguard of privacy and civil liberties remains a challenge.

Democracy guarantees political freedom and rights. Yet it is not incompatible with marginalization, exclusion, poverty, disempowerment or disrespect.

Placing human dignity at the heart of foreign and security policy may seem foolish and hopelessly idealistic. Yet, the alternative is far more short-sighted. Short-term stability can be deceiving and sometimes a longer time frame is needed to judge this correctly.

The fundamental human needs are dignity, recognition, identity and belonging. They are critical to politics, governance and security. In our connected and interdependent world, dignity deficits – individual, collective or nation-wide – fuel contempt and turbulence.

In the event of a catastrophe, human dignity is likely to be particularly fragile, due to the more negative manifestations of emotionally selfish behaviour as well as the vulnerabilities generated by the catastrophe itself and its aftermath. Upholding people’s sense of dignity ought therefore to be a primary consideration in the formulation of responses to catastrophes.

I have highlighted the critical nature of dignity, which is the absence of humiliation but also the proactive attainment of nine fundamental human needs: Reason, Security, Human Rights, Justice, Accountability, Transparency, Opportunity, Innovation and Inclusiveness. 

Sustainable History

Sustainable history is a durable progressive trajectory in which the quality of life on this planet or other planets is premised on the guarantee of human dignity for all at all times and under all circumstances.

My "sustainable history theory" views history as propelled by good governance paradigms that balance the ever-present tension between three human nature attributes ( emotionality, amorality and egoisms ), and nine human dignity needs (reason, security, human rights, accountability, transparency, justice, opportunity, innovation and inclusiveness ).

Any deterministic characterization of history is at odds with effective human agency. The idea of historical determinism denies the crucial role of dignity in history—a central tenet of the "Sustainable History" theory.

In the long run, political and philosophical ideas survive if they are in line with “Sustainable History”, which balances human nature attributes with human dignity needs.

I have theorized that the sustainability of human history and civilization is premised on sustainable governance that BALANCES the EVER-PRESENT TENSION between our THREE human nature attributes (emotionality, amorality, and egoism) and our NINE critical human dignity needs. 

I have argued that dignity for all, at all times and under all circumstances, nudges human history forward and ensures its sustainability, in terms of good governance, and a peaceful / prosperous future for all, by limiting the excesses of human nature through reason and dignity. 

Fake News/Disinformation

The ancient phenomenon of fake news has been profoundly impacted by digital communication channels and social media. Its spread has become faster, more difficult to contain and, ironically, more ‘democratic’ – in the sense that anyone can become a creator and messenger of fake news.

We are, in a sense, living in a “post-truth” era, where no one is taken to have a viable claim to truth.

The use of “fake news” rhetoric and highly selective targeted disinformation is far from accidental. In fact, they are both highly refined techniques of sowing social and political discord.

Our growing understanding of issues associated with fake news and disinformation, and our instinctive biological susceptibility to these sorts of attacks, remind us that digital citizenship cannot be maintained in a state of radical freedom. It also needs proper oversight and critical cultural awareness.

The prefrontal cortex, which hosts the ‘logical’ part of the brain, comes second in the process of reading the news.

We are vulnerable to manipulation by those who appeal to our emotions with the intent to pursue their own agendas.

Human Nature

Most of us, most of the time, are neither innately moral, nor immoral, but amoral. Our moral compass will largely depend on our “Perceived Emotional Self-interest".

The idea of cold, unbiased, ‘mathematical’ rationality, while long celebrated in many schools of philosophy, is not backed by neuroscience.

The notion of confirmation bias also takes into account the fact that the same brain regions which validate socially accepted messages will be more resistant to new information that threatens to isolate the individual from the group. Humans thus discount information which “undermines past choices and judgments”.

Human nature is highly malleable. Forms of governance will make the difference between us choosing the path to social cooperation, moral and altruistic acts or, conversely, to survival-focused, aggressive and immoral behavior.

We are all addicts of some sort: some of us to constructive behaviours, others to behaviours that are destructive, to the self and to others.

There is very little in our nature that is innate or ‘finished’, and we are highly malleable to circumstances – this leaves a great deal of importance to institutions.

Given our strong genetic predilection to survive, which I explained in the framework of a "predisposed tabula rasa ", emotions of vulnerability can directly translate to distrust and pre-emptive aggression

What Hobbes saw with impressive clarity was that the ‘war of all against all’ need not be a literal clashing of swords but was better understood as an emotional condition.

For ideas to pass the test of time, they must account for the emotional, amoral and egoistic characteristics of human nature.

Humans will strive to do whatever it takes to survive, including acts that appear immoral, such as pre-emptive violence. The human moral compass fluctuates in the course of existence, and good governance is the best means to limit the excesses of human nature.

The understanding of human nature as (emotional, amoral and egoistic) has consequences regarding a conception of history, both at individual and state levels. Because human beings are profoundly ‘unfinished’ prior to their socialization, most of them, most of the time, are at the mercy of circumstance.

We are hardwired to distinguish between us and others, but the exact definition of the ‘other’ is learned.

The capacity to discern clearly between our moral and immoral actions should not be taken for granted, especially when confronted with fear and deprivation.

Human beings are amoral at best and are susceptible to the conditions of the environments in which they find themselves.

Human capacity for moral feeling as well as the willingness to be socially cooperative is significantly determined by the environment.

Man’s amoral nature must be balanced with accountability, transparency and justice.

The egoistic nature of human beings must be balanced by opportunity, inclusiveness and innovation.

The theory of a "predisposed tabula rasa" argues that our nature is highly malleable and “written upon” by experience, but it is also predisposed toward self-preservation & provides grounds to understand morality as a higher reflective achievement, not inherent to our nature.

The understanding of human nature as a predisposed tabula rasa informs us that survival is the most fundamental human instinct coded in our genetics and that, when imperilled, it is likely to trump everything else.

More recent evidence of “genetic memory” also demonstrates the presence of readily inherited intuitions that we possess upon birth.

Rather than choosing between dichotomous notions of moral vs. immoral, I argue that humans are essentially amoral.

Humans are born with what I have called a predisposed tabula rasa, free of any innate ideas but possessing certain predilections for survival coded by genetics. We come into the world with a set of basic survival instincts which do not operate as conscious motivators but more like inbuilt biological microchips tuning us for survival.

It is very often emotions, rather than rationality, which determine human behavior. Emotional experience is deeply embedded in most of our thought-processes and inferences.

While humans have a predilection for some moral sentiments under particular circumstances, they do not, in my view, possess innate morality. It is therefore important to create the conditions under which the expansion of our moral communities becomes more likely.

My view of human nature differs from the views of Hobbes and Rousseau and lays the foundation for a more pragmatic approach, in which I advocate that the moral compass of man can be influenced positively by incentive-based constructive behavioral frameworks of societies and their governance mechanisms.

The enduring assumption that human behaviour is governed by innate morality and reason is at odds with the persistence of human deprivation, inequality, injustice and conflict.

Human beings are “emotional amoral egoists”, driven above all by emotional self-interest. All of our thoughts, beliefs and motivations are neurochemically mediated, some predetermined for survival, others alterable.

La moralité, l'altruisme et le comportement social positif ne sont pas des choses acquises d'avance, inscrites dans notre « nature », mais sont cultivés et soutenus par des circonstances qui garantissent une sécurité de base, la dignité, ainsi que des institutions responsables."

We are defined by our amorality; our moral compass is shaped in the course of existence and as a result of circumstances in our environment.

Egoism is a fundamental feature of human nature. It is not only about biological survival but also about the attainment of life goals and the opportunity to express one’s authenticity.

Within certain parameters, pleasure-seeking is fundamental to human nature, as, in addition to our fundamental survival-oriented disposition, the human brain is pre-programmed to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

The idea that we have innate morality competes with the brutality, inequality, and everything else that fills the history of our species.

My upbringing and my experiences as a neurosurgeon instilled in me a deep desire to enhance collective (non-reductionist) insights into the fragility and malleability of human nature and its role in improving governance paradigms. 

By understanding the neurochemical foundations underpinning states that we recognize as amorality, egoism, fear, and greed, we can be better placed to navigate the challenges posed by contemporary geopolitics and global security. 

I have drawn on a wide range of philosophical approaches to human nature and neuroscientific research, to make the case for a new neurophilosophical theory of human nature that I call “Emotional Amoral Egoism”. 

Amorality implies that while we have the capacity to develop a moral compass, that compass is influenced by personal and political circumstances. Moral conduct is unlikely to persist when conditions of fear, alienation and insecurity abound due to hardwired predisposition for survival.

It follows that morality, altruism and pro-social behavior are not ingrained in human nature. While it is possible to cultivate such predispositions in all circumstances, it is more likely that morality and other core behaviors take a back seat when our survival instincts kick in. 

My theory of human nature challenges the views of Hobbes and Rousseau and in doing so lays the foundation for a more hopeful and pragmatic approach. It advocates that the moral compasses of humans can be influenced positively by constructive mechanisms and frameworks of societies.

I believe that my theoretical framework—which is rooted in neuroscientific research—could go a long way in developing sustainable, inclusive, innovative, peaceful, and prosperous governance structures, both domestically and internationally. It could have profound implications for the re-ordering of governance mechanisms at all levels, with a positive knock-on effect for human security, cooperation, identity construction and the mitigation of ethnocentrism and xenophobia. 

Future Warfare

A future of fully autonomous weapons in warfare will be defined by immense levels of asymmetry. It is highly improbable that all countries will possess such advanced systems –this will shatter current understandings of jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

An attempt to deploy a bioweapon, be it by a rogue state or a non-state actor, risks a civilisational catastrophe. It will be practically impossible to confine an outbreak to a predetermined geography, given how connected and interdependent the world has become.

History and culture often appear too abstract for military establishments, but it is critical to pay attention to them, because culture shapes security, strategy, and behavior.

Security and Sustainability of Outer Space

I think it’s reasonable to speculate, given the vastness of the universe, that there are various life forms out there, which may be completely different from us, but not necessarily less intelligent or less capable.

Comprehending the vastness of outer space will require greater technological insights than we currently possess, and different scientific paradigms that may involve new laws of physics.

States consider their space technologies to be among their most precious assets, which translates into a reluctance to share information, limit transparency, and fail to enact international binding mechanisms.

If space becomes unsafe, it will not be selectively unsafe, but rather unsafe for all.

Security, including space security, cannot be understood as a zero-sum game but rather as a multi-sum game, without gains at the expense of the other. Indeed, if space becomes unsafe, it will not be selectively unsafe, but rather unsafe for all.

There is a fine line between competition and anarchy. In their efforts to supercharge the space sector, nations must make sure that they do not cross this line by mistake.

We must agree on legal answers before human colonisation of celestial bodies occurs, and decide what form of governance pioneering nations and groups should adopt.

Geopolitics, Global Security and Strategic Foresight

A sustainable and robust global order needs to be rooted in multi-sum security – where security in a globalised world can no longer be thought of as a zero-sum game involving states alone.

Survival and self-interest are key to state behaviour, and fear and fear-driven behaviour are often central to alliance-building and strategic choices.

Because our nature is highly malleable, easily swayed by emotions and by the pursuit of survival, the only sustainable governance models are those that establish the conditions for the best in our nature to thrive, and for sociality to emerge and sustain political life.

Les circonstances ont une importance capitale dans la constitution de la moralité humaine. Du point de vue de la gouvernance, il est important d'assurer les conditions favorisant l'essor des caractéristiques les plus altruistes et morales de notre nature, mais on ne peut pas prendre cela pour acquis. Ce n'est qu'avec des institutions et des politiques qui favorisent la sécurité, la paix et l'inclusion que les exigences minimales pour la moralité humaine peuvent être garanties.

The intention of the original victors after WW2 in formulating the structure of the security council was to seek and maintain “stability”, not necessarily security or Justice, and that major and serious shortcoming is still there today.

States, just like humans, are not defined solely by rationality, but also by emotionality. The emotionality of states has been a constant feature of global politics, and it has been a determinant factor for international conflict throughout history.

Any essentialist account of cultures and civilizations (such as the thesis of a “clash of civilizations”) is incorrect and unjust. It is incorrect because it fails to identify the larger historical forces and power relations that created categories such as ‘civilized’ vs. ‘uncivilized’. It is unjust because it denies due recognition to other cultures, and implicitly de-values their role and contributions.

The ideal of working towards ‘transcultural security’ is a critical prerequisite to sustainable global security and to a more peaceful and prosperous world – its ultimate goal is to see humanity in a holistic sense, not as a collection of insular and conflictual geo-cultural domains.

For Classical Realists, the pessimistic features of human nature were mirrored in the character of states, which were also self-interested, seeking survival, resources and power. The main difference was that while man’s destructive passions could be contained by the creation of the state, which put an end to the nasty unpredictability of the state of nature, the global system lacked an overarching authority, a Leviathan of its own, and was condemned to anarchy.

Just like with humans, where emotionality is pervasive in decision-making, states too are emotional actors insofar as they are defined and guided by numerous emotional motivators. Indeed, the assumption of ‘reason’ and rationality of states, which was at the foundation of Realism – and other approaches to IR – overstated the rational character of states.

Circumstances are crucial in shaping human morality. From a governance perspective, it is important to ensure the conditions for the most altruistic and moral traits of our nature to thrive but this cannot be taken for granted. It is only with institutions and policies that foster safety, peace and inclusion that the minimum requirements for human morality can be guaranteed.

The seven dimensions of meta-geopolitics, a theory I initially applied to international politics and geopolitics on Earth, are becoming increasingly apparent in space. These seven dimensions are: social and health parameters; domestic politics; economics; the environment; science and human potential; military and security factors; and international diplomacy.

Strategic Culture is an unconventional paradigm for game theorists, who harbor an understanding of rational decision-making based on mathematical models of gains and losses. Strategic Culture is an enduring framework and it is not something that changes with each election cycle. Innovation and change take place in longer time frames, as fluxes in domestic politics and in global norms compel strategic cultures to adapt and evolve.

Reconciliation statecraft identifies eight principal interests: individual, group, national, regional, cultural, global, planetary, and moral.

Strategic culture is an attempt to integrate cultural considerations and cumulative historical memory in the analysis of states’ security policies and international relations.

Countries maintain some persistent and recurrent visions of their security and geopolitical role, which transcend political parties and electoral cycles.

The importance of strategic culture cannot be overlooked despite the fact that pragmatic pursuits often appear to be dictated by immediate interests.

Strategic culture provides an analytical lens through which to better grasp the continuities underlying international crises and the motivations of states’ actions.

Strategic culture encompasses both the emotionality of states (national pride and prestige) and the egoism of states (the pursuit of national interests).

Strategic cultures are dynamic and ever-evolving notions of a country’s history and place in the world, often negotiated and re-assessed across generations.

The centrality of emotionality undermines classical Realism which analyzed states in terms of pure rational self interest.

Symbiotic Realism acknowledges the importance of symbiotic relationships in which both parties benefit from their willingness to interact cooperatively and compete in a non-conflictual way.

Security measures are important, but no amount of surveillance, no matter how sophisticated, can ultimately eradicate the sources of insecurity unless individual and collective inequalities, injustices and dignity deficits are addressed in a serious and impartial way, both domestically and globally.

Large collective identities, especially in the era of globalization, become securitized when their holders feel threatened as a consequence of conflict, stereotyping, disrespect, demonization, or alienation.

No sustainable prosperity or security can be attained at the expense or marginalization of others. Indeed, in today’s world, humanity will either triumph or fail as a whole.

Geopolitics has long been considered an avatar of imperialism due to its traditional association with social Darwinism and its preoccupation with the survival capacity of states and societies.

Geopolitics will always be relevant because of geographic structures that are not mobile and which cannot be overlooked, ranging from resources to emotionally relevant historical sites, locations, and regional/neighboring relations. In this regard, the fast-paced 21st century has not fully managed to surpass some of the limitations and determinations of previous times.

The relations between the United States and China can be best described in the long run in the framework of "symbiotic realism", which provides an analytical framework for international relations in an anarchic world of instant connectivity and interdependence.

Competition, the pursuit of interests and power have been perennial features of international politics and it would be hopelessly utopian to assume the opposite, even in a context of economic and financial interdependence. Yet, interdependence and connectivity do play a crucial role in shaping actors' behavior, compelling them to assess their foreign affairs with pragmatism.

In order for state power and leadership to be credible and sustainable in the 21st century, it needs to be smart as well as just.

"Just Power" is the only sustainable paradigm to ensure the national interest and security of a state, and policymakers must not lose sight of this or be distracted by domestic politics (such as election cycles) or short-term geopolitical gains.

The paradigm of ‘strategic culture’ analyzed the enduring influence of culture and national values on security and doctrines of military strategy. In our era of accelerating globalisation, there are few greater threats to harmony and inter-cultural understanding than essentialism.

“Symbiotic Realism" argues that state interests must now be accommodated within frameworks of cooperation that balance between power-maximization and the reality of a complex global system.

Meta-geopolitics differs from traditional concepts of geopolitics, as it proposes a multidimensional view of power.

Statecraft in the 21st century requires extraordinary abilities to reconcile a series of crucial interests that are relevant in the realm of international politics. Justice as a guiding principle prompts statesmen to strive towards harmony and the reconciliation of different interests, as opposed to pursuing a state’s national interest at the expense of other states and entities.

A good governance paradigm that limits excesses of human nature and ensures an atmosphere of happiness and productivity by promoting reason and dignity is required.

What is important is that a minimum criteria of governance is met rather than the exact form of governance that a particular political system adopts. Yet, they must be appropriate, acceptable and affordable to each system and cultural domain. These criteria should also meet a certain common global standard to ensure maximum political and moral cooperation.

Harmonious interstate relations will be guided by the paradigm of Symbiotic Realism that stresses the importance of absolute rather than relative gains.

Symbiotic Realism conceives the dynamics of the global system to be the result of four main interlocking dimensions: the neurobiological substrates of human nature; the global state of nature (global anarchy); interdependence; and instant interconnectivity resulting from globalization.

Symbiotic Realism is also able to conceive of the global system as including other non-state actors, such as large collective identities, transnational corporations, international organizations, the biosphere, and women. This is vital, since these, too, are all important actors that help to (re)produce the global order and, as such, have a bearing on its relations and dynamics.

The legitimacy of global actors depends not only on their efficiency, but also upon the perception that they are representative.

Emotional processing in the brain is intimately linked to decision-making. The emotionality of states pervades state behaviour and strategic choices. We see this in distinct strategic cultures, which are reflections of national identity as well as collective history and geopolitical experiences.

AI & Disruptive Technologies

A fundamental question is whose morality would robots inherit? Would they mirror the traits of human nature, i.e. emotionality, amorality and egoism, thus developing a strong interest in their own self-preservation?

A super-intelligent being, even if programmed to be cooperative, might still perceive itself to be in a Hobbesian state of nature, and act in hostile and pre-emptive ways.

The fundamental nature of machines will change when they no longer derive their decision-making processes from a programmer, but instead learn how to behave and adapt their behaviour based on their environment. This is not unlike humans, whose development and reasoning is informed by their experiences.

Amoral robots, like humans, might ultimately be driven by self-interest and an intrinsic desire to ensure their own survival.

Imagine a scenario where a global corporation conquers international markets and wriggles out of regulation chokeholds, amassing so much power that even sovereign states have to answer to it. Does this sound familiar? This was the case hundreds of years ago with the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company, the industrial arms of the British and Dutch monarchies – although you would not have been far off the mark if you had thought this was a reference to modern-day tech giants.

We need to be alert to AI’s potential impact on Privacy and Civil Liberties. Generative AI tools used to create deepfake videos and disinformation campaigns are likely to damage trust in institutions and endanger national and international security. Left to its own devices, Generative AI could also exacerbate tensions around data sovereignty, intellectual property rights and surveillance. Given the large sums at stake and the economic and political influence of the companies creating these technologies, containing these AI tools will become a very difficult task. According to reports, the world’s leading seven tech companies building advanced AI now comprise 28 per cent of the S&P 500 index. With these numbers, serious self-regulation is looking like a distant dream.

Above all, we need to be alert to how toxic commercial and geopolitical competition is leading to the potential covert development and release of new AI products, before we have a full understanding of their potential uses and misuses. Narrow-National Interests and binary Geostrategic Competition will amplify these challenges. That is why well-grounded compromises must be found to guarantee that AI can be deployed ethically and safely. The stakes for humanity’s collective future are far too serious not to try.

We should also be worried about the ability of AI and Quantum Computing to fuel Geopolitical-Rivalry. The highly disruptive and fast-moving nature of AI – and pressures to incorporate AI into the wider economy – is likely to increase instability in the international system: in particular, within the highly sensitive nexus between AI, quantum computing and nuclear security. Quantum computing’s enormous potential – reports claim that quantum computers could solve chemistry, physics and engineering problems in minutes that would take today’s supercomputers millions of years – has sharpened international rivalries as the race for quantum supremacy deepens.

Unilateral measures by leading world powers, and the responses they might provoke in geopolitical rivals, will become increasingly dangerous, as tech companies and countries around the world race to be first to develop quantum computing technology. Our priority should therefore be to seek shelter in more sustainable approaches to global governance (such as multi-sum security), defined by absolute gains, non-conflictual competition and win-win scenarios, thus guaranteeing sustainable security for all.

To protect citizens and the prospects of a peaceful and prosperous Global Order, AI should be regulated just like any other technology. It is important to focus on existing AI threats – not just possible scenarios that may play out in the distant future. In a similar vein, we need to do more to empower antitrust regulators and enforce the laws currently applied to tech companies developing Human machine learning is increasingly employed on the battlefield and in operational logistics. AI-steered drones are already able to suggest targets. At the moment, a human controller still decides whether to authorise the attack, but this might soon change as weapons acquire ever more autonomous capabilities. The prospect of fully autonomous robots with “run-away potential” is real, especially if these systems gain agency, become sentient and unilaterally develop Artificial General Intelligence features that supersede human intelligence. Asymmetrical AI capacities could empower hegemonic states to be more aggressive and exploitative, with dangerous implications for the stability of the international order.

This prompts the question: what can be done to prevent a doomsday scenario triggered by geopolitical rivals cutting corners to attain AI and Quantum Supremacy? Making AI work for humanity will require a long-term view and transdisciplinary dialogue between neuroscientists, AI researchers, philosophers, ethicists, geostrategists and policymakers from every corner of the world. The real danger of outsized power held in the hands of the very few makes regulating AI particularly important.

Human machine learning is increasingly employed on the battlefield and in operational logistics. AI-steered drones are already able to suggest targets. At the moment, a human controller still decides whether to authorise the attack, but this might soon change as weapons acquire ever more autonomous capabilities. The prospect of fully autonomous robots with “run-away potential” is real, especially if these systems gain agency, become sentient and unilaterally develop Artificial General Intelligence features that supersede human intelligence. Asymmetrical AI capacities could empower hegemonic states to be more aggressive and exploitative, with dangerous implications for the stability of the international order.

We must understand the nature of these challenges and ensure that the Governance of Generative AI is grounded in Collective-Human Dignity-needs. In the 18th Century, the lack of strong regulatory frameworks allowed the British East India Company to become the de facto ruler of much of South Asia. Today, the power and resources held by some of the tech giants is comparable, although AI’s enormous potential for good makes the situation less clear-cut.

As AI technology advances at a breakneck pace, AI tools will become smarter, cheaper and omnipresent. There is no denying that many AI technologies carry a huge potential for good. Hardly a week goes by without a headline-grabbing report heralding the revolutionary potential of AI in all human and societal imperative needs. But therein lies the rub: a lot of the qualities driving AI’s enormous potential could also lead to humanity’s disruption and potential undoing.

We should think back to these imperial trading companies of yesteryear as we consider how AI technologies will shape the world. There are still many unanswered questions, both practical and philosophical: is it possible for corporate giants in the AI space to balance safety with the pursuit of revenues and profit? Do we fully understand the ethical, moral, geopolitical and existential implications of these new disruptive technologies?

Human Experience

The meaning of existence is not a uniform prescription that applies to everyone in all geo-cultural domains, or across different epochs of human existence the same way. Each individual is responsible for making their own reality and aspirations.

We must think of humanity as an ocean into which many rivers flow and add depth. The Ocean Model of Civilization is a paradigm that can guide new thinking on transcultural relations and our common history as one human civilization.

L'histoire de l'humanité est celle de l’amélioration personnelle et un aspect de cette histoire est la recherche de la satisfaction neurochimique.

The premise that we learn the most about ourselves by learning about others might sound like a platitude but the significance of the idea continues to be underappreciated.

Much of what we often consider knowledge is actually a point of view held without sufficient grounds: in a word, dogma.

Because of factors such as different life experiences, cultural backgrounds and societal norms, as well as the unique neurochemical processes that underlie the thought processes of each individual, knowledge and what we think we know are, in many ways, personal and not at all universal.

Knowledge therefore is often both temporally, spatially, and culturally constrained as well as indeterminate.

The lack of certainty about what we know also has a positive side. If we accept that we can be absolutely certain of very little, we can be dogmatic about very little. Recognition of the limits to our knowledge should therefore facilitate respect and dialogue.

In `knowing how we know what we know` rests the premise for a less vicious and confrontational world and, conversely, for a more patient and accommodative one. This is an invitation to introspection and humility: not humility of one culture in relation to another, but in relation to our own human constraints in knowing and grasping the world.

In my opinion, a life governed by reason is likely to be more dignified than one shaped by dogma and unbridled emotions.

What makes our existence meaningful is highly subjective and ultimately determined by sustainable neurochemical gratification.

All knowledge is acquired through the application of reason and has a physical basis.

The fragility and vulnerability of human neuro-psychobiology is such that long after the reconstruction efforts are complete, there might still be a great deal of enduring pain and humiliation that is unseen and that could have long-lasting and negative consequences for our interconnected and interdependent world. It is worth remembering that whenever and wherever possible, prevention is far more effective than the best cures.

Neurophilosophy

While all human beings care about justice, the neuronal mechanisms involved in considerations of justice or fairness are tightly connected to other behavioral and emotional processes. These are linked to personal experiences, political and geo-cultural contexts.

A neurophilosophical approach on how to interpret the constitution (originalism vs living constitutionalism) suggests that no one definitive approach must be chosen a priori because what is authentically ‘moral’, ‘just’ or ‘fair’ to individuals is not uniformly the same in content across humanity.

A neurophilosphical perspective on social distancing reminds us why we cannot survive and thrive in loneliness-and why the older structures of the brain identify the prospect of prolonged isolation as truly dreadful.

In neuroscientific terms, we know that the Stoics’ aversion to emotions as threats to reason is unfounded.

The long-standing dichotomy in epistemology between empiricism and rationalism contrasted the position that sensory experience is critical to knowledge (empiricism) with the strong view that reason is essential to all knowledge (rationalism).

Neuroscientific evidence paints a more nuanced picture about the empiricism vs rationalism divide, and this points to far closer connections between sense experience – emotionality – ‘rational inference’ than previously thought.

The knowledge paradigm, which I called ‘neuro-rational physicalism’ (NRP) explains more holistically the process of knowledge formation, and stresses that rationality and emotionality are not different, dual processes in the brain.

According to the theory of neuro-rational physicalism, knowledge is never ‘complete’ because its sources are biased, subject to interpretation and inputs from prior assumptions, which are cultivated through personal experiences.

La neurophilosophie a des implications pratiques pour la gouvernance et l'élaboration de politiques : la compréhension des fondements neurochimiques de la nature humaine, notre fragilité et notre malléabilité, ainsi que notre programmation pour la survie, sont des aspects cruciaux afin de concevoir des paradigmes de gouvernance appropriés qui correspondent aux attributs de notre nature.

Thoughts and knowledge are physical processes insofar as everything is physical (neurobiologically speaking) because, although invisible to the eye, thoughts, memories, perceptions are mediated through neurochemistry and thus have a physical base.

Western philosophical tradition, strongly influenced by Plato and Kant, held that emotions precluded rational thinking and, simultaneously, one’s ability for ethical thinking. However, neuroscience has extensively shown that the neuronal mechanisms underpinning cognition and moral decision-making are in fact tightly connected to emotional processing in the brain.

Evidence from neuroscience points to five key powerful motivators of human action, which I previously called the Neuro P5: power, profit, pleasure, pride, and permanency. If a technology appears which enhances one, more or all of these motivators, we will irresistibly and inevitably pursue that technology.

The human brain is pre-programmed to feel good, and this sense of well-being is sought and channelled through the Neuro P5: power, profit, pleasure, pride and permanency.

Les preuves manifestes des neurosciences font ressortir cinq motivateurs décisifs puissants de l’action humaine que j’ai nommés précédemment les neuros P5 : le pouvoir, le profit, le plaisir, la fierté et la permanence (« power », « pleasure », « profit », « pride » et « permanency » en anglais) (à savoir, assurer notre survie et prolonger la vie). Si une technologie voit le jour qui peut augmenter un, plusieurs ou tous ces motivateurs, nous recherchons inévitablement et de manière irrésistible cette technologie.

Il y a cinq facteurs cruciaux qui animent la nature humaine et que j'ai appelés les neuro P5. Ce sont le pouvoir, le plaisir, le profit, la fierté et la permanence (« power », « pleasure », « profit », « pride » et « permanency » en anglais) (c'est-à-dire le désir de survivre et de prolonger la vie). Ces puissantes sources de motivation humaine sont soutenues par le fait que le cerveau humain est préprogrammé à « bien se sentir » et qu'il fera tout son possible pour parvenir à la satisfaction neurochimique, la maintenir et si possible la renforcer.

Stress impacts the prefrontal cortex and can impair working memory and goal-directed decisions, meaning that under conditions of acute stress we will tend to shift to more habitual paths, rather than dare to take risks or think about other long-term rewards. That is why, the human capacity to discern moral from immoral should not always be taken for granted, especially when individuals are confronted with fear and deprivation.

The environment plays a critical role in how our moral compass shifts. Fostering the right kind of social and political conditions will ensure that the best of our nature is allowed to thrive. The opposite is also true: conditions of violence, fear, insecurity, and poverty will induce more survival-oriented defensive or pre-emptive actions.

The role of emotions in decision-making has been sidelined for a long time, and the Platonic-Kantian tradition posited rationality as central to morality. However, contemporary philosophers have significantly challenged this view thanks to evidence from neuroscience that demonstrates the neurochemical links between emotions and decision-making.

Evidence of the role of emotions in IR is widespread. Before the advent of neuroscience, the role of national idiosyncrasies in global affairs had a precursor in the so-called “national character studies” during World War II. Today, neuroscience provides further grounds for looking at the interplay between emotions, decision-making, political ideologies, peace-building, and leadership.

Anatomical changes in the anterior cingulate cortex can be correlated with inclinations of liberalism, while those in the amygdala (which is part of the limbic system and thus concerned with emotions) appears to be associated with conservative values.

The same neurochemistry that makes human beings malleable to their environment also predisposes them in basic ways.

Our neurochemistry is our lowest common denominator and because emotions are neurochemically mediated, they are present across cultures as part of our genetic inheritance.

The malleability of our neurochemistry is a reminder that public policies must work towards preventing injustice, humiliation and insecurity, and any conditions that are likely to exacerbate our egoistic and survival-oriented behavior.

Lack of familiarity with neurosciences prevented classical philosophers from grasping aspects of human nature that are inherited and grounded in our shared neurochemistry.

Our gratification is highly individualistic and experienced subjectively, but it can be 'instructed' to a certain extent by the environment, repeated experiences, and exposures.

The human brain is "hard-wired" to seek pleasure and avoid pain, as well as to repeat acts that achieve gratification and avoid actions that cause discomfort.

What we can hope and strive for, collectively, is to create environments in which sustainable neurochemical gratification comes from activities and beliefs that create a balance between our personal wishes and acceptable values, both domestically and globally.

Power activates the very same reward circuitry in the brain and creates an addictive ‘high’ in much the same way as drug addiction.

The brain is neurochemically pre-programmed to seek pleasure, regardless of its social acceptability or how it is derived. We are therefore, all addicts, of one sort or another, to the extent that we are all engaged in pursuits that ensure dopamine and other neurochemicals flow.

The primary neurochemicals involved in the reward of power that is known today are dopamine and testosterone, the same chemical transmitters responsible for producing a sense of pleasure.

Thoughts, memories, perceptions and emotions are physical in the sense that they are mediated through neurochemistry. They are rooted in chemical reactions and processes in the brain, all of which are physical.

Neuro-rational Physicalism is premised on the neuro-biological foundation of human nature, which implies that thoughts, perceptions or emotions correspond to a physical reaction in the brain.

Humans are genetically and neuro-chemically programmed to `feel good` and are driven by a number of factors, which I call the “Neuro P5″: “power, profit, pleasure, pride and permanency”. Consequently, if a technology appears which enhances any of these strong motivators, our neurochemically-mediated calculations, emotions and survival instincts will intuitively push us in that direction.

My theory of knowledge, Neuro-rational Physicalism (NRP), explains that, contrary to many philosophies of the origins of knowledge, knowledge is neither purely based on empiricism nor entirely based on rationalism. Rather, knowledge comes from a combination of employing both sense experience and reason, both of which are subject to interpretation. How we interpret our sense experience and how we frame the questions that generate our accepted knowledge depend on many things, including prior assumptions as well as cultural, spatial and temporal settings.

Evolutionary inheritance provides us with powerful emotionality, but leaves much to be determined by contingent circumstances. Because emotions are neurochemically-induced, they do not vary significantly across cultures. Egoism does not rule out cooperative behaviour.

The brain is neurochemically pre-programmed to seek pleasure, regardless of its social acceptability or how it is derived. We are therefore, all addicts, of one sort or another, to the extent that we are all engaged in pursuits that ensure dopamine and other neurochemicals flow.

Humans are genetically and neuro-chemically programmed to `feel good` and are driven by a number of factors, which I call the “Neuro P5″: “power, profit, pleasure, pride and permanency”. Consequently, if a technology appears which enhances any of these strong motivators, our neurochemically-mediated calculations, emotions and survival instincts will intuitively push us in that direction.

Neuroscience has debunked many long-held beliefs about human nature and notably about the false dichotomy between rationality, on the one hand, and emotionality, on the other.

Neurophilosophy has practical implications for governance and policy-making: understanding the neurochemical underpinnings of human nature, our frailty and malleability, as well as our hardwiring for survival are critical for devising appropriate governance paradigms that correspond to the attributes of our nature.

A neurophilosophical approach reminds us that human nature is not static, but highly pliable, because our brains and neural circuitries are malleable. Humans can learn and unlearn even deep-seated norms and prejudices.

The dominant ‘Western’ philosophical tradition, influenced by Plato and Kant, held that emotions preclude rational decision-making and our ability for ethical thinking. However, human experience is mediated by emotions and these emotions, in turn, are mediated by neurochemistry. 

I have suggested 5 critical motivators of human behavior which I have termed the #NeuroP5. These are: Power (personal and political); Profit (monetary and other material gains); Pleasure (physical and aesthetic, e.g., arts, music, nature); Pride; and Permanency (longevity and legacy). 

Antiquity & The History of Civilisation

The Enlightenment is commonly described as “revolutionary” but its inspiration from Antique and non-European works and ideas remains an uncomfortable and less-acknowledged fact.

Doubt and skepticism, as cornerstones of philosophical methods, typically attributed to Descartes, were greatly encouraged by the 12th century Arab Muslim philosopher Ibn Tufayl and many other thinkers before.

The idea that the Enlightenment was solely about individual autonomy and reason is simplistic and dangerous as it is often used to pit a rational and secular West against an irrational ‘other’.

The 5th century anecdote of Thucydides—that the strong do as they will and the poor must endure what they must— was taken on as a mantra by Realists in the 20th century, who imbued it with the status of timeless truth — in a tone reminiscent of the fatalism of the great tragedians.

Transcultural history has been forgotten or downplayed by Western collective memory.

Discussions of "multiple civilizations" establish a pecking order that directly or indirectly permit preconceptions, alienation, humiliation, dehumanization.

Cultures do not come into existence ex nihilo.

Discourses of "multiple civilizations" helps justify hegemony, abuse, denial of justice and a selective application of international norms and human rights.

The characterization of conflicts in civilizational terms misconstrues cultures as insulated, monolithic entities, and it undervalues historical cultural sharing.

All cultures are influenced and coloured by those that have preceded them and by other contemporary cultures with which they come into contact.

The Ocean Model of civilisation views human civilisation as cumulative.

The representation of History as an account of conflict between multiple civilizations is both historically incorrect and politically problematic.

Just as the Arab-Islamic world built on the foundations of earlier advancements and borrowed from other geo-cultural domains, so too did Europe.

An agenda of cultural isolationism or arrogant exceptionalism is profoundly counterproductive and ultimately unsustainable.

The adaptability of ideas is required for their survival.

Notions of endurance and “the century of humiliation” in the 19th and early 20th century are key to Chinese strategic culture.

Europe and the Arab-Islamic world have brushed shoulders for centuries, and their histories are inextricably linked.

History demonstrates how ground-breaking achievements are invariably built on the contributions of others. Just as the Arab-Islamic world built on the foundations of earlier advancements and borrowed from other geo-cultural domains, so too did Europe.

Unearthing the many positive exchanges that occurred between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world has immediate implications for contemporary transcultural relations.

Europe and the Arab-Islamic world have brushed shoulders for centuries, and their histories are inextricably linked. Knowledge, techniques and institutions made their way from East to West.

Uncovering the shared heritage and the role that the East played in the rise of the West may help build the foundations of a collective memory that combats the discourse on the danger of Islam to Europe and the West.

The contribution of the Arab-Islamic world to the rise of the West also extends to material and institutional elements, including in the realm of the industrial revolution, the rise of capitalism and of the modern state.

The rise of Europe should be seen as part of a global history. Instead of thinking in terms of separate civilizations, it is more fruitful to think about one human civilization to which different geo-cultural domains contribute, much like an ocean into which many rivers flow.

Unearthing the many positive exchanges that occurred between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world has immediate implications for contemporary transcultural relations. The East no longer seems so reassuringly inferior, antagonistic or alien to the West.

A more holistic look at history is also instructive in identifying our commonalities, which is critical to promoting modern transcultural security.

Collective civilizational triumph is not a zero-sum enterprise that favours one geo-cultural domain over another. Given the instantly connected and interdependent nature of today's world, all geo-cultural domains must succeed if humanity as a whole is to triumph.

A historical perspective focused on sustainability offers more adaptability than the End of History alternative. Underlying this sustainable history model is the belief that what drives history is not primarily the search for freedom, but rather the profound human quest for dignity.

It is useful to recall that the triumph of the Arab-Islamic world was in no small way due to the openness and tolerance that characterized its golden age, when advances in knowledge were embraced regardless of the race, religion or ethnicity of the scholar. We have much to learn from this in today’s world.

Many of the great achievements in history that are commonly attributed to one geo-cultural domain often owe a great debt to those of others. In this sense, some of the greatest achievements of human civilization have been collective efforts and are part of the same human story.

Civilizational triumph is therefore not a zero-sum enterprise that favours one geo-cultural domain over another. Justice is paramount to civilizational triumph because of its centrality to the need for human dignity, to the success of individual geo-cultural domains and to the well-being of human civilization.

Les récits essentialistes des cultures et des « civilisations » ont souvent été fondés sur des visions des cultures qui étaient paternalistes ou des cultures décrites comme étant irréconciliables.

l'Islam en Europe est considéré comme un phénomène récent et menaçant mais ceci efface malheureusement la longue histoire des échanges et des emprunts culturels au monde arabo-islamique et sa contribution à l'essor de l'Occident dans différents domaines.

Avec Hegel et Marx, le phénomène d'une histoire orientée vers une fin a atteint son apogée et sa forme la plus achevée parmi les auteurs de référence occidentaux.

Transcultural Studies

Transcultural education reveals that human history is a cumulative effort, where no culture can claim monopoly over another but instead is indebted to others for their contributions.

Education plays a central role both in determining our social dispositions as well as in global affairs: it teaches us to uncover the many biases in our respective forms of knowledge, appreciate our own limitations and respect the ‘truths’ of others.

Transcultural study simultaneously creates the premises for a more tolerant and self-critical attitude, while instilling a greater understanding of the ways that cultures have evolved.

Education is the single most powerful tool for pushing back against an always-looming state of nature, and for promoting a more just, secure, equitable, prosperous and sustainable global order.

There are all kinds of moral truths that see the world from different perspectives, and none of them have to necessarily be more right than the others.

Education is key in promoting awareness and building a collective memory in Europe that Arabs and Muslims are present, not only in relation to confrontation but also in connection to high points in Europe’s history.

Pushing immigrant communities to shed cultural frameworks only encourages these communities towards counterproductive defensive postures. America assimilated immigrant communities successfully because it gave them the necessary time to do so, and Europe needs to do the same.

Cultural and ethnic diversity benefit humanity’s future, survival, strength and excellence, promoting what I call "cultural vigour", similar to the way in which molecular and genetic diversity promote “hybrid vigor” in nature and thus strength, resilience and a higher potential for a problem-free future.

Breaking down essentialist understandings of cultures and raising awareness of their respective contributions to one another both diminishes cultural arrogance and provides the basis for trust and respect.

There are eight elements that enable transcultural synergy and carve help to forge a universal value system: 1. Dialogue; 2. Agreed upon Rules and Ethics of Dialogue; 3. Mutual Understanding; 4. Tolerance and Respect; 5. Mutual Learning; 6. Identification of a Moral Minimum; 7. Reduction of the Technological Gap; 8. Fair Representation.

A sustainable progressive trajectory also depends on our collective triumph. For this to occur, transcultural synergy is essential. This is because the success of any one geo-cultural domain is likely to be dependent on that of another: a geo-cultural domain cannot excel in isolation from others.

Political Philosophy

A common thread in the social contract theory is the assumption that the state and political order exist for the general interest of the people, where life, liberty and property can be protected. Now seems to be an appropriate time to reassess some of our long-held credos about our liberties, the functions of the sovereign and the limits of control.

The sense of disillusionment with democracy in its current form has been reinforced with disclosures of large-scale government surveillance, violations of privacy and civil liberties. Globally, democracies have also acted in ways that suggest an outright renunciation of their principles at home.

Political philosophy has traditionally been concerned with and relied on various theories of human nature, which then informed theories about political order, states, and types of governments. These ranged from pessimistic views, seeing man as essentially egoistic and power-driven (e.g. Thomas Hobbes), or generous and perfectible (J.J. Rousseau), or defined by rationality (Immanuel Kant).

The risks of discrimination or biases in predictive analytics can undermine both individual and political rights.

Populist political speeches that are meant to unite and excite must also avoid irresponsible and culturally-insensitive sound bites that may trigger alienation and insecurity.