Act, or die. Act sustainably, or die, or die and have your actions rendered meaningless.
This is the dilemma that accompanies life. Bodies decay. Lives are finite. At any moment, anyone alive can act, or die, in an infinite amount of ways. And with every action, comes a reaction. And with every death, a potential action negated. With regards to life, there exist few eternal truths. Among these few, is that death is inevitable, that actions have consequences, and that no one is capable of foreseeing every consequence for any action. Left with the recognition of these facts — consciously or unconsciously — all intelligent life must decide how they should act, if they are certain that they will die, but uncertain of what might result from their actions. The decision that results from this dilemma is usually one of three choices:
I will act as others do (conformism)
I will act however I like, because no action matters (hedonistic nihilism)
I will act in the most meaningful way possible (sustainism)
The first course of action is a form of agency deference. Being the most common, this course is also the most comfortable. Because only by surrendering your autonomy to the movement of the masses, can anyone of achieve the sort of ease, and equanimity that accompanies a complete lack of responsibility. On a large scale, this course of action results with individual differences being reduced to semantic labels, and distinct individuals being reduced to formless mobs. On a larger scale, this course results with entire societies being bounded to a senseless dogma, and trillions of choices being made on the basis of nothing other than group consensus. The inevitable cost of senseless coherence is everything. The byproduct of mindless agreement is the dissolution of rational choice. Option 1 is unsustainable.
The second course of action is a form of agency denial. Developed usually from a need to justify acting, and an unwillingness to justify thinking, this course is usually the most uncomfortable. Sustained by the dissonance that it requires, this course is uncomfortable because its sentiment is simultaneously contradictory, self-righteous, self-deprecating, and the incumbent of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nothing matters if everyone acts as if nothing does. But if nothing matters, there can be no justification for acting in the first place. Successful adoption of this decree results with individuals being reduced to autonomic corpses, and civilizations being rendered functionally insufferable. Life is unsustainable on the basis of basal drives. Societies are untenable when built by broken individuals. Option 2 is miserable, if it is even sustainable.
The third course of action is a route towards agency amplification. This course of action is not comfortable or uncomfortable; it is tolerably difficult, it is sustainably fulfilling. This course, being the only course of action that is self-justifying, is so because its actions are dedicated towards the allotment of, the allowance of, action itself. Sustainism is a devotion toward the empowerment of being. Being in the best interest of everyone, sustainism, when practiced by individuals, allows for them to justify their actions, because their actions are in service to their potential. Societies, when formed by these individuals, allow for coherence without conformism, and pleasure without hedonism. In civilizations formed by these societies, all action is upcycled, and no difference is without meaning. Option 3 is the answer to how to act, if there is one.
Act, or die.
Without meaning there can be no justification for acting — but without purposeful action life is meaningless. So the most purposeful actions must be those that are beyond sustainable — that is, creatively purposeful; cyclically useful. Compliance without persuasion and pleasure without a point represent purposeless, useless endeavors. Conformity breeds homogeneity, and the byproduct of senseless homogeneity is everything as nothing. Nihilism proves nihilism, and nihilistic worlds are insufferable. Insofar as their belief can constitute action, every ethic, or moral philosophy, can be understood as a presupposition that predetermines behavior. Moreover, morality cannot exist without the substantiation of eternal truths. And if it is true that evil and the divine are opposites, then what is most evil must be that which does not allow for the divine — so, all unsustainable behavior must be immoral. With regards to sustainism, lying, killing, and stealing are forbidden, for, if repeated they empower no one. Near the edges on the continuum of what is sustainable lies that which is beyond useless, beyond sustainable, and beyond good and evil. Creativity, when purposely applied renders societies without bounds and being for an eternity. Creativity, when improperly used fosters hell and makes life unjustifiable. Moreover, merely "alive" serves as a poor descriptor for being's whom's actions can be sustained for an eternity. "Eternal" is a word best reserved for gods. Although, maybe the term "gods" is one that is best reserved for the men who've earned it. Although, given the consequences otherwise, it seems that even if we aren't yet gods, maybe it's time we acted as such.