THE DESTINY OF HUMANITY: Cosmic Civilization, Thermodynamics, and the Natural Operating System

Abstract Human civilization is drifting along an irreversible high-entropy trajectory toward systemic collapse. The root cause is not any single runaway technology but a deeper meta-error: mistaking a local, human-desire-centered operating system for the operating law of the cosmos itself. This book traces how that error was amplified through a specific lineage of instrumental rationality and growth-oriented institutions, reaching a critical threshold in the age of artificial intelligence — where AI functions not as the origin of crisis but as an unconstrained Desire Amplification Factor (DAF) for pre-existing patterns of want. Rather than asserting its answer prematurely, Volume II surveys the twentieth century’s major attempts at cosmic integration — cybernetics, general systems theory, dissipative structure theory, the Gaia hypothesis, process philosophy — identifying the “last step” each approaches but does not complete: a universal boundary function constraining energy–information transformation across scales. Volume III fills this gap by systematically presenting the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology (LYGC), reading the Dao De Jing’s two thirteen-character chains — the Emulation Chain (人法地、地法天、天法道、道法自然) and the Generative Chain (道生一、一生二、二生三、三生万物) — as a precise astrophysical mapping, from which the Cosmic Constraint Function (CCF), Desire Amplification Factor (DAF), Civilization Stability Function (Λ), and Sage Entropy are derived as operational constructs. Volumes IV–VI address Artificial Wisdom as a governance paradigm distinct from artificial intelligence, the reconstruction of resource-balanced civilizational institutions, and humanity’s long-term position as a participant in, rather than conqueror of, cosmic evolution. The book’s methodological commitment is to strictly separate four levels of argument — empirical science, systems modeling, normative philosophy, and cosmology — and to treat wu-wei (無爲) as a logic of self-organizing attractors rather than a euphemism for coercive algorithmic control, so as to avoid reproducing the very high-entropy governance structure it critiques.