In order to start making real progress towards fixing our world’s problems, we need to change the way we think and communicate. The New Epistemic Deal is a proposed agreement to facilitate serious discussions about ecology, politics, economics, morality, spirituality and countless other topics without the discussion being derailed by people who refuse to start with the known facts about reality. We must do this without scientistically ruling out things that aren’t supported by science or reason but aren’t in conflict with them either.
Ecocivilisation represents a vision of a society that harmonises human activity with ecological principles. This is not a utopian ideal but a necessity dictated by the realities of ecosystems and evolution. The claim that ecocivilisation is our destiny is pre-political, transcending specific ideologies or systems. The social, political, and economic structures of ecocivilisation are not part of this definition, but the core premise is clear: civilisation must work ecologically to endure.
Consciousness – our individual interface with reality – is the one thing each of us can be absolutely certain exists. It is through consciousness that we perceive existence and recognise that anything exists at all. As such, consciousness must serve as the starting point for exploring what exists beyond our subjective experience and for discerning the boundaries of what we know and what we don’t.
Scientific knowledge tends towards truth. We acknowledge that there is such a thing as an objective reality, external to human minds, about which science provides structural knowledge that is reliable, albeit with certain important qualifications. We reject the idea that all scientific knowledge is merely provisional, or as subjective as non-scientific forms of knowledge. We affirm the epistemic privilege of science.
Materialism cannot account for consciousness. Physicalism either suffers from the same problem, or it implies things that most physicalists reject, in which case it is not much use as a piece of terminology. Both materialism and physicalism restrict our models of reality in such a way that they are never going to be able to satisfactorily account for everything we have justification for believing exists.
Psychegenesis and free will are structural parts of the system – there's no point in being skeptical about them. Everybody is aware of their own consciousness and felt metaphysical freedom – we do not consider this “spooky”. The same does not apply to synchronicity or any other alleged praeternatural phenomena.
Principles seven and eight are closely related, but sufficiently distinct to warrant the inclusion of both.
If there actually is an objective reality, and we can actually know things about it, then if we start our moral reasoning with anything other than reality we are engaged in fake morality – we will be arguing about what would be morally right and wrong in some ideal reality rather than the real one that we have to figure out how to share. And if the people we are having moral disagreements with are actually dealing with reality, while we are not, then they are engaged with real morality and we are claiming moral high ground we have no right to claim.
Principle seven is specifically about morality. Principle eight is about everything that matters – it is about practical reasoning as well as moral reasoning. It demands that the whole of science, including the whole of ecology, the limits to growth and the reality of ecological overshoot, must be acknowledged before serious discussion starts about anything at all. It should be considered immoral to come to any negotiating table demanding concessions from others before you are willing to accept reality. Growth-based economics and politics are dangerous nonsense, and for anybody who understands that, engaging with them while failing to persistently challenge their false assumptions is an immoral act.