Along with that intelligence, we have developed the capacity to assist other species for altruistic reasons; but we are only just beginning to discern what manner of actions we should take, in order to save from extinction whatever is endangered, or indeed to ensure that the environment on this planet remains salubrious enough to support living creatures. We are learning to perform what is required of us however, and in doing so, whether we like it or not, and at the expense of laying ourselves open to the charge of hubris, we are assuming the mantel of deity.

Something which conflicts outrageously with this image is man's description as a carnivore. For us to nurture other creatures with a view to fattening them up for slaughter, and then consumption, undermines any possible argument that we have their best interests at heart. We become an unpleasanter (and less admirable) species as a result of our carnivorous indulgence. Nor shall we truly be in a position to assume this mantel of deity until our feeding habits have been changed.

What might appear today as too sizeable a problem, (to adopt a diet that is both sufficiently nourishing and sufficiently exciting to compensate for the absence from it of any meat,) will no doubt become a lot easier as we advance through the next century. Once scientific research has come up with the means of producing a substance, (edible fungus perhaps,) which displays a similar texture, taste and variety to the flesh that we have grown accustomed to eat, then I anticipate that the transition of man in his cultural practice, from carnivore to vegetarian, will emerge as its natural consequence. But in the meantime of course, like the rest of humanity, I shall in all probability continue to indulge in our obscene flesh-eating habits.

But even in our imperfect state of spiritual evolution, humans should not flinch from this role in life where we consciously assume the mantel of deity; or it is at least one that we should assume until such a time when a superior intelligence has been scientifically discerned, to the point when it (or they) lift such a responsibility from our shoulders. But this gives rise to a debate upon the extent to which we should exercise our capacity to alter things from what they would otherwise have been, with the argument that it would only be alteration for the better still lying open to protest from those who might view such change differently.

In its most controversial area arises the question of the sanctity of human life, as it arises over issues such as birth control, abortion and euthanasia. There is no such sanctity to be recognised as such, within the Pantheistic ethic. It is even conceivable that murder can be justified under most exceptional circumstances. The criteria for determining such cases, (no matter which the issue,) lie far more on the pragmatic plane: a question of discerning where the greatest reduction of human anxiety is involved, to the implementation of the general happiness perhaps.

Largely this should be a question of individual case study, until such a time as generalisations can be effectively established. The human anxiety which derives directly from unwanted pregnancies, and from overpopulation, should certainly be factors which weigh heavily when it comes to any final assessment of these matters. But the balance becomes distinctly more marginal, if we are considering the justification for abortion, when nothing other than the family planning of the parents is concerned. Humans must not shrink from the necessity to play God however, in the making of such decisions. Where a pattern of greater potential happiness (or peace of mind) is perceived, as a result of taking such life, then a Pantheist's persuasion will be to proceed.

But it will remain important to discern, and to retain, the criteria for judging that there has been abuse of the license to suppress human life; and the guiding rule perhaps is that we should be careful in such cases, to avoid acting in implementation of our own moral judgement, in contradiction of the established ruling upon such matters. This is in effect saying that we should respect the law, no matter how hard we might be trying to get it changed. To behave otherwise merely opens oneself to the charge of supposing that we are a law unto ourselves. In recognising the law of the land as a shield against total anarchy, I submit to its regulation of my conduct in this life, until the desired change in the law has been brought into effect.