p. 5  overestimate the reader?  ;-)  Or is it a test to pass before reading on.

p. 7 1000page→200page  I could not agree more.  Sigh.  And then we wonder why “the people” are getting lost.

p. 8 2.: indeed, some questions can now no longer be decided by democratic vote, e.g. whether or not to give the vote to women, or whether gay people should be treated.

p. 8 3.: Maths as unique true/false domain: yes, but only because it starts out from that principle!  And so you state on page 9 indeed.  Well, and not forget Gödel.

p. 10 Confucius:  like Star Trek...

p. 11 The “Thinkers” are actually studying common brain structures.  The brain being very complex, grown (growing), and different in each individual, it is impossible to reach definite conclusions.  We can at most talk about some vague averages.  E.g. we know most people sense pain and dislike it, but there are known exceptions.  Most people like to be loved, but there are exceptions.  All forms of brains should be included in any philosophy, but that would, in the limit, mean 8 billion different philosphies, just to apply to the currently living ones.

p. 12 “verstehen”  there we are, what now?  So “understanding” is fundamentally making abstraction of details, and what qualifies as details can probably be computed.

	[etc. → usw. :-) ]

p. 13 [eliminatefull-stop: Die alle elektromagnetischen Vorgänge beschreibenden Maxwellschen Gleichungen füllen sechs halbe Schreibmaschinenzeilen.]

p. 15 here comes “emerging” properties, something which remains a mystery to me.  Or?

p. 16 disagree: all life is constantly changing and never perfectly adapted, though it often comes so close as to give that impression.

p. 17 agreed with the four stages, though in 4. the network is probably more important than the digital form (see Otlet).  There is also the artificial intelligence aspect, coming or not, and the switch from memorised knowledge over written knowledge to purely visual (video) knowledge (touched upon in the next page).

p. 18 I’m glad you mention thinking in images.  I have met too many philosopers and linguists who think that all thinking necessarily relies on language.  It does not.

p. 19 perhaps you will mention it later, but the problem of “consciousness” should go the same way as “soul”; it should be sitting with phlogiston, the philosopher’s Stone and the ether.

p. 19-20 yes, perhaps explicity note that it applies to animals living in groups, not solitary and not those whose offspring don’t need looking after.  Spiders eat their mates.  Bonobos do not follow point 1, in fact I think point 1 is not necessary at all.  Monogamy (even temporary) is not a prerequisite for a good society, as long as everyone agrees not to harm one another.

p. 20: survival of the species is/was not accepted by some (e.g. Richard Dawkins), selection works only on the individual.  I do not completely agree with that neo-darwinian stand, because clearly an individual can be protected by the group.  Richard would argue that therefore those individuals who evolve to work in groups will survive, but the selection is still on the individual and not the group.

p. 20 point 4:  perhaps this is new in evolution, like there were other important steps/partitions.  Once this step is made, there is room for only one (homo sapiens won over all others) and no other animal can develop this step independently.  This is not like, say, the eye or brain, which evolved several times independently.

p. 21 I do not like the often used juxtaposition of christianity and judaism.  The Old Testament is very much in contradiction with the New Testament.  Jesus was probably a Buddhist monk who got lost while travelling.  Christianity also differs fundamentally from judaism in that it has many lesser gods (the saints) and gives a prominent place to women (starting with Mary).  Jesus is also reported to have said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God, thus separating church and state.  What is your opinion of the other strict monotheistic and fatalistic religion, Islam?

p. 22 the idea of guilt:  one acquaintance summed up the difference between Asia and Europe as: “the West is about guilt, the East about face.”

p. 23→ perhaps the “need” for religion is a (bad) side effect of our current brain structures.  Many biological structures work well, but do have negative sides.  Memes may be largely negative. (The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore)

p. 24 peer pressure and adolescence are evolutionaruly built-in.

p. 24 internetblasen:  their attraction is probably also built-in, like the taste for sweet stuff:  sweet stuff like honey and ripe fruit used to be rare, but with sugar it has become abundant.  Those who sought out the sweet stuff got the energy to survive, but with too much of it available, they now get obese.  Something similar happens with internetblasen, possibly because of craving contact.

p. 25 yes, and some ideologies are extremely long-lived and very difficult to get rid of.  They are mostly designated by the adjective “orthodox” of “fundamentalist”.

p. 26 there is evidence that a sixth “class” of intellectuals/artists/scientist, (mostly consisting of mildly autistic people) is also necessary and that the groups who tolerated them thrived, even though it was obvious that these individuals did not directly or daily contributed to the workings of society, but had a much longer-term effect.

p. 27 indeed, größeren Gesellschaft:  this is a tough problem because where does one put a useful limit?  It should be the planet, but we’re not there yet (sorry for mentioning Star Trek again, but there humans were allowed to join the galactic community only after Earth was politically unified).
The border between law and ethics is thin, and it moves!  It is much like the line between physics and philosophy.  Your first example already shows this.
And yes, the problem of the Common.

p. 28 Spinoza’s solution probably has behind it that it takes into account the lesser intelligence of the masses?  Which then gives religion its power, but also gives power to populist politicians when/where religion is no longer very strong.  Alongside Plato, Aristotel and Epicurus you might therefore mention Machiavelli.

And yes, always think what would happen if everyone acted in the same way as you want to do.  However, that does not take into account the great diversity among humans.  This diversity is far underestimated.  For example, my personal preferences are not shared by everyone, so there is no threat that everyone might do the same, on the grounds of that diversity.  There is nothing against me indulging in things that, say, only less than 5% of the population like anyway.  Some “bad” practices can very well be tolerated because only a small minority likes them.  Fortunately we are all different!

p. 29 first 2 examples:  the first one falls under “don’t do to me what you don’t want others to do to you”, but the second is of the nature “I’ll do to you what I’d like you to do to me”.  The Old Testament uses the first rule, which is negative.  In the New Testament, Jesus pleads for the second, which is positive (note: that difference shows again that Judaism and Christianity are very different and should not be mentioned in a single phrase!).  I certainly do not like the second.  As an example:  most people I know like “wellness-centres”, but I dislike them.  Giving me a massage is not what I like being done to me.

About other societies:  there are some who for centuries have been vegetarian, but now that they get richer, they can afford meat and do start to consume it.  The vegetarianism was, for some at least, just superficial.  If conditions are similar, behaviour will be similar, though diversity will still exist and may grow.

The evolutionary approach is interesting in that most societies function because of a coherent set of symbiotic memes which must be in relative harmony with our human nature.  Thus if there are no great conflicts between the memes and our nature, the society can continue for a long time, which explains many groups with deep beliefs.  In them, a minority will feel opressed, but most will be “happy”.  If conflicts are large enough, the society will crumble:  this happened to communism.  The balance can be changed by changing conditions: economic, geographic and so on, therefore over time a memeplex may find itself untenable through changing circumstances.  Science and technology have certainly changed which memeplexes can thrive.  Perhaps a good example is that of the Amish, which perpetuate themselves only by strictly avoiding all technology beyond a certain level.

p. 30 “Es bleibt die Frage: Ist tatsächlich alles, was die Freiheit anderer nicht einschränkt, gesellschaftlich und ethisch akzeptabel?”  the answer is YES, but the problem is in what is understood by “the other”.   That is generally another human, but to which extent is it also an animal?  A mosquito? No, but a gorilla or dolphin? Yes.  There is a SciFi story (I have forgotten who wrote it) which explores this idea to some extent:  each human has an entire planet to themselves, and they meet other humans only seldom.

The old king-noble-peasant system was vested on absence of cheap power.

p. 32 Interesting is that during all times the rich at the top behaved in the same ways.  They spent most of their time in entertainment and most were obese.  Recently this possibility has reached the majority of people, because production is automated, no longer needing human muscle power, and often not even human intelligence.  The current industry is largely entertainment.

p. 33 democracy only works after long debates, and only for important problems.  Both are now absent, hence the rise of populists and mobs.  Democracy does not sufficiently take human diversity into account.  Then also there are issues which can no longer be decided democratically, because we know so much more about physics, biology, neurology etc.

p. 34 Eve was the first scientist?  Religion always forbids critical, individual thinking.  That’s why it was forbidden to eat from the tree of science, and why St Thomas was criticised for wanting evidence instead of simply believing.  Unfortunately, many people just want to believe:  thinking is really hard.
And of course, the original sinner had to be a woman, men are always superior.

p. 35 The problem of free will is not quite solved, though I believe we don’t have it.  Part of our decisions are random, so it’s not determined either.  Luther’s list is strange, I find 4 and 7 very dangerous and 10 the ground for even more dangerous fundamentalism.

p. 37 Freedom of religion was mostly about ending the wars between the factions of christianity.  Complete freedom of religion is not tenable:  what if I create a religion which requires human offerings?  To what extent can any religion order mutilations of children?

p. 38 “trickle-down” does not happen, or at least certainly happens much less now than before.  It is not a necessary result, certainly not a law!

p. 40 “The voice of hte People”, Fishkin, is an interesting exploration of different ways to organise voting in a democracy.
Modern law also does not take diversity into account: it considers all citizens of equal intellect and education, whereas this is manifestly not true.  It is dangerous to change this, but it does lead to bad decisions.  Recently it has led to the avoidance of vaccination by those who are under influence of conspiracy theories.

p. 41 under freedoms one could allow self-harm as long as this does not weigh on society, e.g. one can smoke if one then also contributes more to health insurance.  As to offensive things:  that is mostly but not always in the eye of the beholder.  For example, the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo must be allowed, but how to deal with sex in the street (what are little children allowed to witness?)

p. 41-42 diversity is again at the heart of the problem.  A person’s talents may be great in some areas (e.g. a music) but bad in another (e.g. congenital health problems).  Everyone should have a minimum level of well-being, but how does one judge what that is?  Insurance and state-run systems help, though some religions forbid this if strictly taken.

p. 43 One great problem in economics is transparency.  How do we know what part of an purchase on Amazon goes directly to the fortune of Bezos?  If we knew, would we object?  Does anyone care?

p. 44 10.1.3:  this type of transactions should certainly be forbidden, since it concerns things that do not really belong to me.

p. 45 Moreover, the products of many such companies are not really needed:  they are entertainment, fashion, art etc.  They do not contribute to wealth or well-being.  There is nothing against this though.

I don’t see why it would be ethically incorrect to do whatever I like with what I was given or what I inherited (I don’t do so, but I can’t see anything against it).  However, I do have a problem with gifts and inheritance.  My grandparents acquired a certain fortune, which my parents added to, and which I inherited.  But I did not work for it, there is no reason why I should get it for free (even after taxes).  The problem occurs earlier:  clearly my ancestors got more than they needed, how did that happen and how was it allowed?  It’s a very tricky problem, because I do want to save income for some future projects, and some of those may well be ensuring that my children are reasonably well off.  All of this has to do with money/property.  Yet another reference to Star Trek:  there is no money or property in their society, though there are personal objects such as musical instruments or family heirlooms.  It’s highly idealistic of course.
10.1.7 confirms again that most people today are in entertainment, their “work” is not a necessity of life.

p. 46 I disagree that anyone can build their own enterprise if they want:  they need talents for that, which they may lack.  Also: the goals of the company may be completely in the entertainment area, and thus destructive of resources.

p. 47 Fortunately, many super-rich either become philantropists or try to do very different stuff like space exploration.

p. 50 Seneca:  Carpe Diem.

p. 51 agreed, and is also part of my essay to come.  However, the pressure to sell also comes from dwindling margins and production costs.  Thus, more must be sold even if almost all of it is without use.  This will only end when everything is free and produced on demand.
However, most people do not know what to do with more time:  they need to be guided.  And of course we need a factor of 30 fewer people on the planet.

p. 53 I think 8 million would be better than 8 billion.  Also, from a recent quiz question:  “the population of hte planet was 1.7 billion at the start of which century?”  answer: “20th.”  Quite.

p. 55 +78 million, so all of the corona victims were replaced in less than a month, yet the mere existence of the disease did mobilise everyone!  How to mobilise at the same level but for the goals of saving the planet?

p. 56 I could not agree more.

p. 58 13.:  this question has as many different asnwers as there are people, though there are large overlaps.
(1000€ for 100m2:  cheap!!)

p. 59 to 60 where are you going with all that?  Most income is fictitious today, it is not linked to anything produced, most is entertainment anyway.

p. 61 Kannibalisierung, certainly!

p. 64 Erkenne dich selbst:  the leitmotif of Star Trek people...
but Die Tür steht offen is difficult for most, it requires a lot of energy and courage.

Anhang:  this is mostly not about ethics but economics.  The page on crypto currencies is interesting:  I’m following an on-line course about it, given by a former US colleague in a programme of permanent education at San Francisco University.  I could not agree more with your points on page 78.  However, the digital techniques are what guarantees that the State cannot intervene.  It’s not even known who are miners and who not.  The central issue is to eliminate the third party, as in RSA encryption.  It is purely a matter of not trusting anyone.  There is no way to forbid this except by interventions of the same nature as those used agaisnt gangsters in the good old days.  In addition, it would have to be forbidden world-wide.  It would go “underground”.
As to the waste of energy: that’s because of the “proof of work” problem, which can probably be solved differently.
There are quite a lot of crypto currencies apart from Bitcoin.  More worrying is Ethereum, invented in 2012, by a 19-year old Ukranian.  It uses blockchain technology to set up active contracts.  It has also already been hacked because of a bug in the virtual contract programming language.  This made the entire original blockchain invalid (the only way out, since by its nature the blockchain cannot be corrected).
Therefore one of the great ethical problems is trust.  Who do you trust, how, for what, and why?
A last note on crypto currencies:  their value is not related to anything real, like that of normal (fiat) currencies.  Despite bubbles, fiat currencies are linked to the future of the economies of the states issuing them, more or less.  If people trust the economy will continue reasonably well, they will have trust in the currency.  If they believe it will collapse, the currency will collapse (even beforehand).  A crypto currency is more or less dependent on what its known users think of it.  If Elon Musk buys them, good.  But it’s terribly volatile.

And a last note on ethics:  at what point does one start to intervene in the affairs of others?  We have police, laws, and if necessary can report abuse.  But should we not invervene in Afghanistan?  I think yes.  Leaving was not an option, though I also would posit that the intervention should have been better.  For one thing, relying on interpreters was possibly the worst aspect.  Each platoon on the ground should have had at least one soldier fluent in the language, to be able to talk directly to the people.  Again a matter of trust.

Possibly trust is the substrate on which any ethics must be built.

For those who did not get it earlier, I have attached the Charter of the French Republic.  I knew much of it before, but to get my French citizenship, I had to get a copy and read it.  It’s there in the original and in an English translation.