About five centuries ago, the human race - for the first time in a million-year history - began an increasingly disciplined study of itself and the whole world. In the resulting“evolutionary instant”, we have already discovered enough about laws of physics to fundamentally change our conditions and capacities. We may possess the power to transform our entire planet - and ourselves - for good or ill. Either way, this accelerating process is forcing many attitudes and adjustments on all newly-powered individuals, societies - indeed on the whole species. More specifically, this unavoidable challenge causes us all to make major decisions about whether and how to change the ways our species has “always” acted. We must examine how societies have viewed, and related to, their own and other societies, and treated the natural world around them. Why? Each person now being a member of a surviving group(state?), fighting/competing/cooperating with others individuals or groups for dominance/benefits/survival, and also able to threaten any function or survival of the environment, has“suddenly”become one of a species with potential planetary-scale creation or destruction. At minimum, this demands that all traditional human perceptions, relations and institutions be carefully questioned - not just because they may be false or dangerous, but because their optimum value is new. Difficult issues force individuals/societies to test old views. Should PRIORITY now be given:

          (a) to group honour or to its endurance i.e. by being prepared to use violence to survive ethnically to maintain critical collective identity; or to avoiding all possible conflicts, because their new lethality could well cost human survival;

          (b) to group identity or to its governance i.e. by giving priority to unique cultures as treasured global assets; or by seeking optimal, if shared, institutions because of their clear benefits for all, and hence their inevitability over time;

          (c) to seek resource quantity or quality i.e. by generating higher living standards globally, since all societies now perceive themselves at least relatively deprived, and many feel dangerously so; or by consuming responsibly in the most successful societies, so selective restraints can benefit both the very unfortunate and also global posterity;

          (d) to optimum innovation or to stability i.e. by turning increasingly to science and technology to solve problems, as often appears to implement a more rational approach; or by constraining modifications to those ensuring prioptive situations that meet ethical, environmental or“safety”concerns;

          (e) to human relations or to individuality i.e. by giving priority to collective bonds, as societies traditionally have had to do for survival; or to personal views, a concept made feasible and valuable by knowledge-based society;

          (f) to human rights or to obligations i.e. by maximizing group and private freedoms, if minimum collective needs are met and others’ freedoms unimpaired; or by stressing social responsibility in an inter-dependent and -aware world;

          (g) to respect for facts or moral judgments i.e. by seeking scientific truth, however unwelcome, on the basis that ignorance, let alone avoidance, of facts is irresponsible and possibly dangerous; or by promoting absolute standards, however demanding, and even if empirically unprovable, on the basis that a moral framework for human behaviour is both essential and superior to all other considerations?

          These are the sort of basic questions being forced on human society by totally novel circumstances, and which, even if neither acknowledged nor recognized, lie behind millions of large and small debates taking place all over the world today. They reflect legitimate differences of perception created by the rapid speed and great depth of change now transforming every society on earth. There are no entirely right answers to any - even if one option seems to fit new conditions and capacities better than others. Both sides may have ardent supporters, so a compromise or gradual innovation may be best. The main point is that we cannot avoid taking decisions on such issues - more and more often at the global level. Since we may not survive really stupid decisions, we must know as much as possible about the real issues involved, their real origin, and the real “consequence of error” if we screw things up!

          Not only elementary justice and democracy, but enlightened self-interest, demand that as many actors as possible be involved, not merely in a decision-making process that will fundamentally affect us all, but in the complex, difficult, and often delicate search for the most generally acceptable and sustainable solutions. To this end, we must also utilize every available means that helps us exploit the best human knowledge, skills, products and powers.

          This does not imply conceding all global issues to a world government or even to the UN. We neither need nor could agree to give one world authority such pervasive, let alone binding, powers. Our aim - and our limited capacity - must be to select carefully - in rapidly changing circumstances - the optimum levels or institutions to deal with at least the most pressing issues, and then to assign them the essential powers to do the job. On the other hand, our past allocation of duties and powers mainly to sovereign states no longer fits our changed or changing circumstances. These optimum levels now include many more geographic and functional interests than our species has been used to consulting, or even recognizing. For the first time some decisions must somehow involve the entire global community, for reasons of effective implementation, not simply justice. Henceforth others may involve regional, “nation”-state, provincial, municipal, occupational, intellectual, community, ethnic, linguistic, belief-united, and family levels or groups, as well as individuals. In short, when trying to deal with our growing range of unavoidable problems we must “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's”. Just as important, the allocation must be the product of the most objective and functional criteria possible. Survival may actually be at stake.