Universal Rights & Immigration

Over the coming months, I will be writing examples of how Universal Rights work in the real world. As each social challenge is solved using Universal Rights, the universal aspect will become clear.

To gain perspective into sustainable immigration in modern society, a primer in Universal Rights is needed. Those hearing of Universal Rights may be unfamiliar of the real world applications, much less how it applies to sustainable human activity.

Universal Rights: How does it work? To simply state [Universal Rights] as purely biological — independent of society — will raise questions for some. As a comparison, Universal Rights is akin to rainfall — independent of a farmer’s need for rain. A farmer can use irrigation for crops in need, but short of that, crops needing more rain than is expected for a given region is a natural barrier, and anything beyond that must be artificially induced (naturally unsustainable).

The biological foundation of Universal Rights stems from a clear understanding in the naturally developed capabilities complex organisms exhibit. These abilities are the direct result of adaptation driving millions of years of evolution. (Adaptation: a change in function to better achieve a goal. Evolution: a series of adaptations towards a refined function.)

As an example, a basic universal right would be walking, for humans to even use bipedal locomotion means such a capability was needed in order to survive our environment. The fact this ability was present throughout the history of our evolution is clear evidence of a sustainable ability. If walking wasn’t a sustainable ability of our species, it wouldn’t have remained part of our physiological description all this time.

Likewise, if our habitat were the oceans of the world, it’s likely we would have developed fins or flippers — making bipedal locomotion an unsustainable development in an aquatic environment.

The ability to breathe air, speak, eat and reproduce are all biological functions that are the result of sustainable adaptation driving our evolution. The reasoning is simple: If our developed biological capabilities were not sustainable, then such capabilities would have adverse effects on our continued existence, categorically eliminating our species from continuing for subsequent generations, much less millions of years. We have these abilities because they were developed as sustainable abilities, and represent true balance with the environment we live in.

To deny someone speech, vision or hearing, is to deny use of a sustainable function — infringing on one’s Universal Rights. Universal Rights represents the right to continue use of sustainable capabilities: as developed naturally in the very environment that allowed said capability to develop.

Balance in ecological terms is not a scientific anomaly. Sustainable ecology is thanks to biological entropy in action. In any system of energy, equilibrium is a pressure towards maximum entropy — the self balancing result of uniform energy dispersion. All those grade 4 science projects now come to mind. Heat at one end of a metal bar will equalize given enough time. Wait long enough and there will be no evidence which end of the bar was hotter: the energy state of all molecules of the bar will be indistinguishable from one another, reaching maximum entropy (balance in the system.) Waves on the ocean can be regarded as low entropy (clear evidence of where the peak waves are), whereas a still pond would be regarded as maximum entropy — peak waves almost indistinguishable across the entire water surface (maximum disorder in the definition of peak wave location.)

Does Universal Rights fit with entropy? The second law of thermodynamics states entropy in an isolated system [of energy] can never decrease, and will systematically evolve to a state of equilibrium (maximum entropy). Likewise, any complex organism developed from millions of years of sustainable habitation will exhibit balance with the respective environment. Indisputably, the activities of a tree frog could be nothing less than sustainable if said species has existed in the forest for millions of years. For clear evidence such a species has existed for millions of years is all that’s needed as proof of sustainable habitation — easily claiming Universal Rights in every aspect of the species’ continued sustainable activity and existence.

Still how does this relate to immigration? One more connection is needed for this: Life.

The known definition of life is technically blind, misleading and narrow. Life is said to be the distinction from inorganic matter, and can be identified by it’s basic biological functions. This is as incomplete a definition as looking upon a single painting and say: this is “art.” More accurately, it would be a single example of within a single medium — blind to the entire breadth and culture of art.

To exemplify, a black ant is a living organism. But a single living ant is not what life is. Yes, the ant might be “alive” but life is not a simple slice of organic function in a given moment, but the entire scope of how an ant lives. Can a single ant survive independently? Unlikely. A single ant belongs to a colony that functions as a whole in order to gather food, build shelter, and support a complex reproduction system. If any one of the many functions of the ant colony is prevented, the entire colony ceases to exist. For the activities of the colony not only represent sustainable habitation with the environment, but represent the capabilities only a colony can achieve. A lone ant cannot build a deep shelter to survive the winter, nor can it harvest food to survive that period while building a shelter. life is found in the organism of a colony as a whole, much like the cells in our bodies cannot survive independently — nor can individuals of an ant colony. Sociality is born from complex organisms that require a community or colony to survive, for without this, survival is greatly limited if not eliminated.

Life is found at more than one level. Life is found at the cellular level, the complex organic level, and the colony/herd level. Each level supports the other and does so sustainably. Within each level there is entropy, the pressure for balance in each system is universal. This isn’t something planned or even genetic, it’s simply the result of the conservation of energy — and not the architecture of an outside influence.

The single sentence of Universal Rights states: The rights of any individual are equal to their maximum potential, while never affecting the rights of others. This means the actions of any individual cannot alter the rights of another, for these rights exist due to sustainable adaptation of the species. To interfere with these rights will affect all levels of life for that species. The “potential” component stated in Universal Rights represents capability. Not just immediate capability, but projected capability (as a child to an adult).

Every living organism comes with a set lifespan. Cells have shorter life spans than the person they belong to. A person has a shorter life span than the people he/she belongs to, and Peoples of Earth have much shorter life spans than the global human species they belong to. At each level, entropy can be found — keeping everything efficient and sustainable.

Each level of life is connected to other levels, and dramatic changes at a lower level will not result in the collapse of a higher level. Losing a single cell in one’s arm won’t kill the person. The death of a single person won’t kill the people he/she belongs to, and so on.

The “individual” component of Universal Rights is not specifically aimed at people, but at any level of life: Individual species, individual people, individual community, individual person, etc. Entropy, existing at each level of life will support sustainable activity at every level. Increased diversity of environment for each level of life will always result in a higher intelligence in that level of life.

As an example, one could imagine a group of people living in an isolated region for thousands of years without connection to the rest of the world. Their adaptation will have refined their ways of life to the static conditions of their environment. The isolated communities of these people will have known nothing of space travel, global communications, or world wars.

Without drawing quick conclusions, let’s look at the early europeans opening the western world. For starters, they brought disease natives had no defence for. The natives’ immune systems never encountered these challenges before, much less all at once, and suffered great losses. A diverse immune system is an educated immune system. The europeans, who developed an advanced immune system from a more diverse environment, went about their lives not realizing their defensive capabilities.

Socially, people who travel the world are considered cultured people. They speak with coloured definitions when narrating their experiences and tend to have improved & balanced reasoning skills from their diverse experiences. This enhanced ability supports their continued travels of the world, as they have a greater ease & potential in solving challenges when in different environments.

Individuals who’ve attended university, read non-fiction literature and genuinely look to learn about the world around them — strive to expand their potential — gaining capabilities in maximizing their continued existence. The large gradient between all the available knowledge of the world and their current knowledge reveals an entropic pressure to gain more knowledge — maximizing potential, staving off uncertain outcomes in not knowing. As a result, news industries have voracious subscribers, universities have high requirements for acceptance, and popular public speakers have large audiences. It’s in our nature to expand our potential, we do it at birth and continue until our last days.

As entropy inherently expands through a system — pushing for maximum equilibrium, so too are the functions within each level of life. Defined societies in each country of the world support a specific culture. Their local social structure represents the capabilities of the people it’s comprised of. The social life organism at this level is also subject to entropic pressures. If a society is as isolated as the western natives once were, then it will be ill-prepared from arriving members of unfamiliar cultures. The new members will seek to maximize individual potential in the new environment — relying on their learned experiences of previous environments — and exploit opportunities not fully understood by the local society.

Life at the society level (countries) must adapt to survive the exposure of other societies. To remain isolated may protect the function of a current culture for a time, but this would not support evolving life at the global human species level. Eventually, the expansion of all the world’s societies will have adapted to maximum entropy. Introduction of a more intelligent society to an isolated society will reveal the isolated society unprepared, changing if not killing the original culture it sought to protect. Society is the immune system of a people, it’s also the intelligence of the people.

Now we’ve reached the immigration portion. Induced changes at any level of life will result in entropic pressures to correct the imbalance. This doesn’t mean it will correct socially defined issues, it simply means variances (imbalance) across the composite of a system will be normalized. As with all things, balance is sustainable. Balanced diet yields maximum health potential. Balanced rainfall yields maximum crop growth potential. Balanced exposure to surrounding societies yields maximum social potential of the people. An imbalance of culture in a society will result in compromised or crippled capabilities of a people. While balance is sustainable, diversity is the mechanism that spawns growth of intelligence.

Universal Rights for an individual society are the same as in all levels of life. A society has the right to sustainable activity — without affecting the rights of any other society. A given society can only regulate acceptance of members from another society, and cannot affect the rights of any other society. It’s a one-way street similar to reading material. Individuals must want to acquire knowledge through literature, not be forced to subscribe to it.

To impose information upon others is to alter the mental contents an individual draws on when making decisions. An altered/unbalanced exposure to specific information will result in altered/unbalanced assessment of said information, resulting in unsustainable actions due to the assessment of incomplete information. This is understood as direct influence of an individual’s ability to act from comprehensive information. If all members of a society were told the world would end in 2012, how sustainable would their society be? If all members of a society subscribed to a religion believing children born head-first were evil, how sustainable would their society be? Clearly, the universal right to induce altered/unbalanced information into a given society does not exist, and is widely known as deception.

If every culture from every society lived in a single country of equal proportions, then the resulting society would have the most diverse and intelligent social structure possible. Such a society would have attained maximum potential supporting growth of great capabilities. However, much like plant and animal species around the earth, people gather in areas where an environment is more habitable to those acclimated to the conditions offered. Simply removing all social and political barriers would not result in the whole of humanity moving to Florida. For this reason, cultural and social diversity must progress in the way entropic balance demonstrates.

Under Universal Rights, immigration policies must maintain cultural & social balance. To support the global level of human life, a society of unbalanced cultural proportion does not have the right to affect other societies. For in doing so, the culturally unbalanced society will create imbalance in a receiving society. Until a given society acquires social balance compatible with all other societies, immigration from that society into another should be limited. Conversely, any society that receives induced cultural imbalance (a state of cultural change due to abnormal rise of members from another culture) will have had their Universal Rights adversely affected. As a result, the affected society must respect the Universal Rights of it’s members by limiting the source of the imbalance.

Each society carries a culture unique to its heritage. This heritage is built over time from generations of members of the respective society. This function is sustainable due to the fact that the heritage is honoured and maintained by each passing generation. The society enjoys cultural balance based on an environment proven to support it. This balance is sustainable so long as the supporting environment is sustainable. To move to another environment will threaten the viability of said culture. The basic mechanics in altering an environment reveals a direct effect on the sustainability of said culture.

No more would a society honouring a culture of fishing survive the environment of the mountains — any more than a palm tree survive the Canadian climate. To induce a species of tree in an unsupported environment will result in the demise of the foreign entity. Likewise, life at the society level (countries) cannot survive integration into other cultures without first building a capability (like an immune system) for ingesting and adapting to the new environment. To refuse adaptation is to ignore the origin of environment from which the culture was sustainable. Scientifically, no evidence would indicate assured survival of a society if transplanted into a different environment.

Since sociality is an inherent trait of humans, the society level of life will protect against sudden changes in social & cultural values. Entropy reveals that abrupt changes will create opposing waves rather than swell with the tide. Change must happen slowly and evenly, as required by natural adaptation.

Current social world policies on immigration have only human rights to guide them. Unfortunately human rights, animal rights, miranda rights [etc], are all social constructs. Members of a society developed these social rights — and are inherently subjective if not completely abstract. Entropy has no direct hold of these social rights, and are therefore artificially induced and fundamentally limited. For social rights, only limited effectiveness is possible at best. If any interpretation is required — at all — life’s entropic pressure will not support it.

Separate societies of varied political effectiveness cannot draw effective immigration policies if they are bound by varied and limited social constructs. If ten carpenters were told to make the same table independently — without using any measurement tools, the results would vary dramatically. To solve this, a universal reference is used (measuring tape). So too are the limits of separate societies. They must be provided a universal reference free of subjective interpretation, otherwise they’ll invent policy based on a flat earth until they discover it’s round.