A major key to unlocking the requirements and possibilities for 
survival of the human species lies in the field of psychology.   If we 
humans are to survive we must better understand ourselves.  Humans and their 
mastery of technology has become the greatest  threat to survival.  We must 
come to recognize in full nature the biases possessed by both groups and 
individuals, which constantly impede a logical and intelligent response to 
the rapidly expanding and overwhelming environmental threats to our 
existence.  That understanding might enable  us to discard the procedures 
which have appeared to work in the past, and allow us to adopt new 
procedures necessary to cope with  survival problems of the present and 
future.

     The field of psychology is built around the study of how an individual 
or a group's view of reality is affected by that individual or group's own 
desires, interests or goals.  We humans are not noted for our outstanding 
capacity to view events dispassionately.  And, therein lies the great 
dilemma.  We are creatures of passion.  Life would seem worthless without
it.  Yet, that passion's tendency to cloud our perception of reality puts us 
on a collision course with the destructive elements in today's environment.

     As a famous poet once stated, "Hope beats eternal in the human breast". 
Possibly the answer lies in our ability to individually and collectively 
channel that passion into our collective struggle for survival.  It's true 
that too many of the human species today are in no position to be concerned 
about collective survival, since poverty makes it necessary to devote all 
efforts to day to day existence.  However, the more economically fortunate, 
or affluent, being less encumbered by the stress of poverty are more capable 
of altering their philosophy and adapting this new passion.  

     Yet, here we must deal with "catch 22".  
Although they are in the best position to affect 
it, the affluent in today's world are least 
likely to want change.  Material comforts may be 
likened to almost any drug or addiction around 
today.  Although the basic change required is 
philosophical, most but not all, in possession 
of wealth, tend to oppose change on general 
principles, whether it be philosophical or 
material.

         The poor or impoverished, which number 
the majority of human inhabitants on our planet, 
crave changes in the material realm. Acquisition, 
not cooperation, or abstract philosophy is the 
order of the day. Cooperation implies democracy.  
In lands where there is not enough to go around democracy is generally the 
victim.  A prophet is reported to have once said, "'Tis easier for a camel 
to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the 
Kingdom of Heaven".  In the same vein it may be said: 'Tis easier for an 
impoverished society to pass through the eye of a needle than for that 
society to attain democracy.

     In conclusion, it must be said that the burden of change to escape the 
monumental threats to human existence, looming in today's environment, quite 
contrary to certain theories of Karl Marx, falls upon the members of the 
affluent societies of the world, who possess the power and possibility of 
philosophical flexibility to enact it. 

     And, even more fundamentally, we must come to realize that it is not 
that nebulous concept, "human nature", which impedes humankind's adapting 
the necessary changes in philosophy, and behavior, but it is really the 
construct of the institutions in his environment that actually shapes his 
so-called "human nature" and impedes his making those changes.

     This writing shall now examine these institutions, in such fields as 
economics, politics, religion, education, health, recreation, etc. 
delineating how they affect our adaptation of the cooperative attitude and 
behavior required to confront the environmental threat to our existence. 

     In the words of a famous cartoonist," We have met the enemy.  And he is 
us"!  Humans have become an immanent threat to all life on our planet.  The 
question remains: have we the heart and the courage to do battle with 
established institutions that shape our "human nature"?