Due to the dichotomy between the physical and psychological, science was defined for each of these themes, so that these sciences seek to isolate themselves from each other. The question is in the real determination as dominant.
An example, society, through the concepts of anthropocentrism, determined that things exist for the good of man. In this way, industries, agricultural systems, and all others similar, developed the extraction of natural goods for human use. With such ideas, a degradation of nature has occurred, which generates climate disasters, causing the death of thousands, or leading to the suffering and death of millions. If we think with logical criteria, we observe that no matter how much the social system determines its positions, natural laws do not change over ideologies. The opposite usually occurs, to minimize loss of life, or reduce the suffering of populations.
In this way, what we have clearly is that between the physical and the psychological, the physical dominates, as the psychological cannot alter physical laws. In other words, the universe and its laws do not change through the epistemologies developed by society.
No matter what epistemology one uses, if it is contrary to physical laws, such epistemology will generate problems for the individual, which will be caused by going against physical laws.
Thus, as it is clear that physical laws are unalterable, epistemologies created merely by the human psyche, which are contrary to physical laws, cannot occur in a generic way, with the risk of exterminating the beings that developed them.
If epistemology continues to determine that nature is made for the good of man, and this ideology defines extracting and using nature more and more, the extermination of human beings could occur, considering that their will is sovereign over other existences. For other existences can lead to the destruction of ignorance in considering oneself dominant, when one is merely a slave to the laws.
Man does not dominate the laws, as he has to obey them to get something he wants. For example, for man to fly he needs to follow well-established and extremely detailed rules. No matter how hard you try, or how much you idealize, until you obey physical laws , you won't fly. It doesn't matter how much man considers his will to be sovereign, because the risk of dying ends up becoming proportional to how much he goes against physical laws. With these ideologies contrary to physical laws, one can suffer fractures, burns, and all types of actions against life.
Life is directly linked to obedience to physical laws. But the nature of psychological systems is to evolve human arrogance over physical rules and laws, as in addition to not flying, it may cease to exist.
Thus, if we devise the best way to obey the physical systems for the good progress of the biological system, the better the biological system will be, but the more we go against the physical system to the detriment of the arrogance of the psychological system, the worse the biological system will be, of being.
