english version

Interpretation of natural principles

Current paradigm is so different from all the previous ones, especially by the fact that a man does not fit into the nature anymore, does not succumb to the law of natural selection, influences the birth rate and substituted natural processes in the nature by their overpower. The process of unnaturalness changed everything. In this current paradigm there are no old ideas or agendas.
In this section I will examine individual topics that are the base of the theory of timeless humanism. I would like to point out that some affairs have already been dealt above in the section of describing the general natural order.


The law of natural selection in a human society; evolution

The law of natural selection (see 48) is the main tool for adapting living creatures to environment and at the same time applies to all products of human creativity (social order).
The law of natural selection is a huge activity of natural order introducing rules into chaos. In a chaotic file of various free and unsympathetic objects it chooses the best-adapted members. It has three causally sequential parts: Creation of mutations, competition (the activity ensuring selection) and rules determining the fate of the objects according to the results of the competition. The competition also has to have some rules.

 Objects are internally subject to mutations (changes) that create variability of qualities. I do not talk about creating mutations here, because the resulting mutation of a human individual in the area of an extended part of their essence is genetically given (genetic transpositions – see 65). Inner conviction is a result of educational impacts that are random and aimed from outside and also created internally. Human artefacts are also mutations that usually compete with others within a market or just by offering social usage. Each community is also a “mutation” and such groups then compete with other groups and internal changes are a synthesis of many internal and external biological, cultural and spiritual forces. The emergence of mutations has not been completely proven, their formation is generally undeniable and this does not influence the meaning of the law of natural selection, whose basic mechanism is competition and its rules.

 There are rules of the competitions and rules determining the fate of the objects according to the results of the competition (usually both sets of rules are included in the competition concept). If the competition is to have any meaning, the rules determining the fate of the objects have to ensure that the winning objects be rewarded with a value, which is recognized in the given environment. It is necessary for functioning of the law of natural selection that this change be reflected in growing value of this object (it was not wasted on needless expenses, e.g. undue benefit for individuals), and biologically with a reproductive advantage, which will really be used for reproduction.

 Mutations can create inferior people, but also superior ones. Unfortunately those of spiritual significance are not so important for reproduction, they are usually spiritual and they are able to lead a community, be the prophets or create extraordinary works. These people usually go beyond common human naturalness, they rather lack natural qualities of vital character, therefore they often do not have offspring but if they do, their offspring usually do not have the same or even better qualities. These mutations are not genetically transferable, only natural tendencies are usually inherited (e.g. musical ear, combination skills). Spiritual enlightenment is not inherited and spiritual products remain the property of the society as experience or rules of an order and can shift it to better mastery. Humanity does not develop biologically to a higher species via these mutations and we can see a certain average biological degradation of humanity, which is not subject to the law of natural selection anymore. However this is very hardly proven because higher education and overall awareness with learned rhetorical skills can cover for it. Therefore I state it as a hypothesis based on medical research and information about the health of younger generation in developed countries.

The law of natural selection orderly solves further surviving and development of the system and it can reach adaptation to changes of environment or increasing the adaptability of the system in a competition with corresponding systems in higher layer of the environment. The law of natural selection of objects eventually creates equilibrium environment of competition of objects of similar strength, which requires using will and activities and maintaining qualities favourable for reproduction. Uninfluenced competition automatically goes towards equilibrium, even if hard changes of the environment take place.

 The law of natural selection usually leads to creation of higher structures that are better suited to win in a competition with simpler ones. A typical example is creating big centralized states that have better resistance to outer enemies than smaller states. Also external pressures caused by the competition or adverse conditions lead to internal solidarity within the community. However in nature we can see that simpler mechanisms remain too, probably because more complicated mechanisms are using them (therefore it is necessary to maintain the biodiversity of nature). If entropy (decline and transition to energetically invaluable states) prevails in the universe, on Earth the process is turned: complexity increases. The law of natural selection therefore fulfils the anti-entropic mission to create complex systems. It is obvious that there will be no more advanced organism than a man; complex artefacts are created by human creativity, which fulfils the mission to continue the anti-entropic process. Organization of a human society is one of these complex structures that need to be created within the competitive environment of diversity of human communities.

 Lorenz and Popper (see 38) claim that creatures create their new ecological niches. Man created his niche and is still expanding it with his creativity, which is embedded in human essence, and destroys the niches of other organisms. It is a spontaneous process of evolution. I claim that this could work well up to the “point of unnaturalness”. Behind it this “evolution” is destruction of the world as it is, because natural competition between man and other organisms vanishes. The niche of men is built as a false vision of a better life; it is not necessary to expand it, man made himself a “creature beyond the competition environment of nature” and became the “ruler” of the world. It is not accurate to talk about people’s niche, until people start to act like a “satiated predator” in their natural lives. Then they will integrate with nature and every community will have its niche, however in a different sense from what Lorenz says. But a lion competes with other male lions too and protects its niche from them. Therefore it is not completely out of the competition and the law of natural selection applies to it. At men the competition also moved into the area of competing between each other, which vanished in developed countries.

 If the conditions are not good, competition leads to victory of the strongest one, who then rules over the others, and to creation of a new structure, a system without the competition. If any competition ceases to exist, organisms turn to decline of degradation of their abilities, because there is no choice of more favourable mutations. The law of natural selection therefore works as a mechanism, which keeps the abilities of objects and systems. The less favourable mutations do not have to extinct; the aim is to ensure they do not reproduce. The law of natural selection is the only mechanism that maintains favourable qualities – any human selection is always inaccurate and counterproductive. The law of natural selection is a part of ideal being (a natural principle) and its components are embedded in the psyche of living creatures. For example market mechanism (see 39, 43) is a competition and the winner is the best mutation (product, service). However, to ensure that the market takes part in the law of natural selection in the area of biology, the results would have to be reflected into reproduction (the more successful people would have more children). This does not happen often enough and therefore the market does not currently fulfil its role within the law of natural selection, selected objects are favoured materially without sufficient connection to selective reproduction (see 60). This happened because unnatural environment ruled the law of natural selection out and market mechanism just keeps running in vain, creating consumerism. At least it maintains some human effort and will to work.

 Here it is necessary to emphasize that a competition always requires rules, these rules are set in nature by the law of natural selection, which is the natural principle. In human society, for example within a market or a democracy, the competition has to have human rules, usually some limitations that place this mechanism into human society.

 Community can win due to having the best biological health or the most advantageous social order, most probably both. Even inside of a community there has to be the best selection of individuals having their physical and psychical levels but at the same time it needs strong inner solidarity because people have to cooperate. If they do not cooperate, this social order is not advantageous for the survival of the community. While human biological species do not evolve to another species and the law of natural selection applies to the biological part only for adapting a given individual or a community to an environment, social order is developed to newer, possibly better forms, and its development can (but does not have to) be infinite. We can call it sociocultural evolution. Man also biologically adapts to environment and these changes have to be included in evolution because biological changes influence sociocultural changes and vice versa. Evolution can also be negative. In current modernity, the science and technology evolution has a positive direction and in human society (including biological and moral decay) it has a negative, anti-evolutionary direction. If technology were not dependent on people, we could with some exaggeration say that machines will win over people in the existential fight within evolution (robot uprising).

 The law of natural selection does not apply only biologically to people, but to all beings connected to human life, influenced by people and influencing people. For the social order, natural environment, technical environment, the medical progress etc. But metaphysical elements that also have an impact in the system are also parts of the social order and the competition of orders can also be the competition of metaphysical elements, including various religions or even completely vague elements included in various secular thought systems.

 All attributes subject to the law of natural selection are then reflected in the biological and cultural state. Inside the communities there has always been a selection of the best-adapted individuals, who then founded families. Not only natural environment was important but also social rules. Civilized human communities saved weak and sick people, which could seem as unproductive. But it was not. These people expressed solidarity and secured it between each other. It was not possible to have work solidarity, to complete one another in work division, take care of the injured but not care for the sick and weak. Why those weak people could be widows of warriors with genetically good children or just children, who lost their parents. Children had to be raised with solidarity. Concerning older people, it was necessary to point out that when today’s young become old, they will be taken care of but mostly, that it is important to honour those, who contributed to the society. This increased the will to fight and work for the interests of the community; solidary society then had better inner unity and functioned better. Solidarity and altruism are positive elements of evolution of social order; therefore during history the winners were often the communities with altruistic elements (Christianity). 

 In human society the priority is economic competition, therefore a boy with a car or a different sign of success is more attractive for a girl. Often this had a stronger meaning than manly behaviour and showing strength, because these do not necessarily have to be the signs of success in modern life. Often the materialistic approach of the girl would be decreased by relativistic and romantic thoughts; the behaviour of the girl was considered impure, which actually happened only when the boy without abilities acquired the material signs of success. The behaviour of the girl, who chooses the father of her future children in such a way that he has to be able to ensure enough means for the family, is naturally materialistic.

 The rules of a religious or a humanitarian idea system that are a part of the social order also have a strong impact on the psyche of people and therefore on the “life force” (the will to live). Here we need to say that the “life force” is no physical. In this sense, stronger are not only those who managed to make more money and acquire more material assets, but also those, who are able to be modest and distribute their means well. Because family brings a certain burden and only the “stronger” ones are able to sacrifice. In short, life force is manifested also morally. Qualities favourable for family are, mostly in women, also manifested by the life force. It was also clear that there had to be some economic base because totally incompetent people usually could not start a family. Therefore a kind of group with the right amount of life force formed, we can call them the “workhorses of the future”. They had the right instincts and the right ability to succeed in the area of economy. Today this group is disrupted by modernistic ideals and overall environment, its members usually realize via only two children in a family.

 Unfortunately both the values of modernistic society and the new means for preventing birth brought an unnatural will into this natural order. “Stronger” like material fetishes or social status more than children. Here I would like to point out that planning of the birth rate in the sense of “when the child is supposed to be born”, usually caused by material conditions, does not stand completely out of the law of natural selection. Material conditions and the number of children are connected and it is necessary to prepare the environment for a family in advance. On the other hand, waiting worsens the biological conditions. Human calculation to some extent can be considered harmless to natural selection. It is however best to keep the natural biological aspect because material conditions can be good after long years, but they will not be used for having a family, because children will not come as a result of for example bad health of one of the parents, but mostly as a result of the parents not wanting to change their comfortable lifestyle.

 Success rate is also given by the upbringing and if in a family there have always been irresponsible children and their upbringing was not good, it manifested in the next generation by incompetence. Nevertheless, natural selection chose the better ones from these people. The “life force” is therefore linked not only to the psychical and physical strengths, but also to virtues and wisdom. Earlier this life approach was characteristic for rural people; they raised numerous offspring in a traditional environment. Their children were healthy, hardworking and moral. It was especially because family farms existed and the complementary work division between the man and the women ensured that both of them be sufficiently competent. In later city society the woman became only the breeder and the governess of children and natural selection in the existential environment applied to women only limitedly because women did not need intellectual abilities to carry out their role in the society. Restoring working of women and their importance at the beginning of modernity was a return to naturalness on one hand, but on the other hand limiting of birth rate was mostly an affair of successful employed women, which made the “technique of unnaturalness” inscribe itself into decadent state. In terms of the law of natural selection it would be most natural for a more successful woman to have more children than a less successful one. However in reality it is rather opposite, therefore this state of modernistic situation is decadent. 

Inside of a functional and perspective community there is biological selection oriented to children of more successful people. The social order helps it. There is again a competition between families and the result is more children of the stronger ones (having better “life force”). This does necessarily have to have fatal consequences for the weaker, however people with various disabilities usually do not start a family even though they probably did not have to die of hunger – they could even help others with their parenting. Competition of usually a rather complicated mechanism, it does not depend only on economic results that however had a great influence on the results of the competition. It was not always important that the most significant individuals reproduce. As always, it was all about excluding the really adverse mutations – people with hereditary diseases or people with asocial qualities. Man does not evolve to a super-man and in the future people will still be just normal people. The important thing is that they live a normal healthy working life without unnecessary pain, suffering and psychical issues. Apart from good relationships and advanced health care, this is ensured by the natural selection for which the conditions have to be set right.

 Therefore within timeless thinking it is necessary to help those families that are not able to help themselves, the families where the parents work and prove their abilities and effort. The competition does not always have to be natural; it can be a human imitation of the law of natural selection. Such a humanistic competition (a competition in a humanistic environment) is ensured for example by schools via selection of the more successful pupils, who then have better chances to succeed in existential environment. Sport is also a kind of humanistic competition. Competitiveness is the imitation of the law of natural selection in a humanistic environment, assuming humane behaviour towards the defeated. The defeated objects do not face the possibility of decline on the base of humanistic competition, they are only disadvantaged in the existential environment and are led through the whole reality of time society to lower their reproduction rate.

 Certain equal starting conditions are necessary, if the competition is to have any rules without monopolism and protectionism. Therefore only such a competition can fulfil its purpose, because it is a real imitation of the law of natural selection. This function of education is not understood by modernistic society, which tries to introduce monopoly machinations into schools via private schools and protectionism. The competition then degrades; equal starting conditions are not given. It is a similar case with bad-quality books that are financed by various funds, which introduces them into market, while a quality work has no chance because no one will finance it. The same applies to members of parliament and other positions. It is very similar with magazines and there is no wonder that such a deformed society focused on financial competition and protectionism only is influenced by tabloid newspapers that are able to make a living and political positions and good jobs are assigned to really capable people. This is the filling of nothingness with a system; capitalism seizes areas determined for other competition systems. If a society is to work well, one type of competition (financial) cannot substitute other competitions because every competition has its own environment. A healthy society recognizes this and differentiates between individual types of competition. This brings about the necessity to evaluate the parents of children according to their performance i.e. with some payments and services from children when they get old, so that the quality reflected in economic success and direct care is maintained.


Equality of opportunity, a timelessly oriented form of equality, is important for the right conditions of the competition. Therefore the starting conditions should be approximately the same, even though I know that this is not a reachable requirement. Competition is also carried out by imitating the successful ones. They have to be successful because they drive the society and if they do not, then it is the models that they create that do it. Sports competitions and other similar competitions based on ambitions (desire for success) are surely an acceptable simulation of life competition, but only in a limited rate and area because they are based on will only. Real life competition in a humanistic environment however has to contain those often-despised elements of economic competition, influencing material means.

 In a timeless dimension it is necessary to use the material means on children or on publicly beneficial works (and therefore on other people’s children). Family as a base of the competition is necessary for that. Therefore family evolved as a competition unit and that is why it is so hard to substitute family with anything else. All other models as we can see, lead to wrong allocation of means acquired by the competition, usually to ensure personal profits. Family is a necessary part of the law of natural selection because it allows directing acquired means towards the offspring.

 It is important that there is a conviction of the necessity of the right setting of circumstances of the humanistic competition, known from Anglo-American regions – you have to give people the opportunity to employment. Equality of opportunities is not a social equality. It creates conditions for humanistic competition without protectionism, to ensure that the good qualities of contestants can really show. Society needs these rules because they ensure the only way to ensure winning of the best subjects. Therefore any prejudicial limitation of equality of opportunities is against the interests of the society. This applies also to people from excluded groups, who differ from other people with some feature, which should not be considered a criterion for creating opportunities. Therefore individual racism and other condemnations based on outer features are counterproductive. On the other hand, we cannot require the same results from all the anthropological groups and therefore there cannot for instance be rules for a percentage share of people of one group in a given job. Also men and women do not have statistically corresponding professional abilities, nevertheless it is necessary to create equality of opportunity for individuals, because for example some women can easily beat all the men in their profession.

 If there were a natural state of the competition, then the community would internally maintain its qualities necessary for survival. From the “point of unnaturalness” on, the law of natural selection does not work and the whole “process of unnaturalness” is especially characterized by excluding competition from human relationships that are important for the selection of the healthy and the strong. This is done with the help of egalitarian restrictions, various grants for the weak but the most significant circumstance of the decadence is conscious limitation of the offspring of strong people.

I do not share the view that people do not adapt to environment anymore and that they only change it to what they want it to be. People really usually adapt the environment to themselves, which solves their survival and civilizational life, unlike other organisms that mostly just adapt to the environment biologically. People started with this cultural process with the start of agriculture and pastoralism and tried to adapt the environment to their needs, which meant that there was lesser and lesser need for them to adapt to the environment. Despite this, biological evolution did not stop, people still adapt to their environment (they mostly learned how to work and make reserves, work changed their body structure, but they did not have to adapt for example to cold weather because they invented shelters and clothing) even these days. The process contained in causal cycle still continues: people adapt their environment to themselves and this changed environment influences them and makes them adapt themselves biologically. This applies also to negative changes of physical abilities – muscle weakness and deteriorating of the body caused by insufficient amount of physical exertion.

 The society does not ensure mutations, only internal competition and rules. Timeless thinking, which perceives cosmic criteria for sustainable existence of mankind, creates the right rules and environment for various types of competition based on natural mechanisms. The main competition is the economic competition, even though it is not the only one. Therefore the biggest danger for the competitions is egalitarianism and relativizing. Economic competition, which provokes human will to live and fight, substituting former wars and violence, cannot be replaced by a new competition based only on will. The effort to make a living and develop the family cannot be replaced with a children’s play. All types of games are not able to be a substitution for real life, only the preparation for real life.