Moving From Anthropocentric To Bio-centric Is Insufficient

I’m familiar with most of works cited. While effort is well intended the frame here is too small and limited. To wit, in the history of the cosmos four major systems have emerged — astrophysical, biological, psycho-neuro-biological (i.e., brain-mind system), and sociopolitical.

You’ve depreciated sociopolitical (which is warranted) using physics (giving short shrift to astrophysical systems) to elevate biological systems (which is insufficient) and ignoring psycho-neuro-biological systems.

Thus, you’ve violated Meadows’ Guidelines ( 8. If something is ugly, say so, 9. Go for the good of the whole, 10. Expand time horizons, 11. Expand thought horizons Defy the disciplines) and the warning by Thompson — “As we analyse a thing into its parts or into its properties, we tend to magnify these, to exaggerate their apparent independence, and to hide from ourselves (at least for a time) the essential integrity and individuality of the composite whole.”

All this leads to other problems (e.g., life is simultaneously competitive, cooperative and synergistic, with different ratios at different times in a system’s evolution and situation, and while life technically violates second law of thermodynamics, this is a common transient phase throughout the cosmos that actually serves as an accelerant of entropy in the final analysis) that negatively undermine your intention and bias suggestions.

Sorry for raining on your parade, but assume you wish to present the best possible interpretation of our situation. So, as noted in some of your other articles, you should consider reading my article, Macroscopic Evolutionary Paradigm.

Doc Huston