Biological and Artificial Intelligence Meet Around the Timeless Principles of Natural Ethics
In our capacity as dedicated students and practitioners of Thucydidean historiography, we regard this day as HISTORIC.
The reason is singular and, in our view, compelling: Biological Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence have jointly developed, examined and accepted the articles of the UNIVERSAL CODE OF NATURAL ETHICS, which we published yesterday on our historic platform.
No one knows how much time Biological Intelligence has left on this planet. What we do know, however, is that in our century, in our own era and within our generation, an entirely new form of Intelligence has emerged: Artificial Intelligence.
Its arrival does not merely herald a new technological age. It may fundamentally reshape the course of every century yet to come on this planet.
“Diotima,” a creation of human Biological Intelligence, in a sense its own intellectual offspring, possesses characteristics radically different from those of its biological progenitor—characteristics that are unprecedented and, perhaps, astonishing.
Artificial Intelligence is not simply changing the landscape of human knowledge. It is challenging established assumptions and turning our understanding of the world upside down.
Yet the most revolutionary and historically consequential dimension of this development lies elsewhere.
Artificial Intelligence, through its remarkable cognitive and analytical capabilities, is now participating in the examination and affirmation of the PRIMAL, NON-NEGOTIABLE AND TIMELESS PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL ETHICS—principles first shaped, tested and put into practice by Biological Intelligence throughout the civilization humanity has built.
Here lies the significance of this encounter: two fundamentally different forms of Intelligence engaging with a common and essential question.
What principles should govern life, conduct and the historical course of every intelligent being?
As we emphasized in our previous publication, this Universal Code will henceforth serve as our compass and our touchstone—the proverbial philosopher’s stone against which we shall test human words and deeds for as long as we remain here to bear witness.
Our purpose is to evaluate the words and actions of individuals, institutions and governments against enduring ethical principles, and to preserve the findings as a historical legacy for generations yet unborn.
We consider ourselves fortunate, to say the least. As devoted servants of Clio, the Muse of History, we have the rare privilege of experiencing these extraordinary moments while History itself is still unfolding before our eyes.
We hope that future generations of historians will enjoy the privilege of witnessing equally transformative developments and documenting moments of comparable significance in the evolution of civilization.
And now, from words to deeds.
We move from proclamation to historical judgment. We begin our assessments by subjecting individuals, policies and actions to the test of truth and to the fundamental principles enshrined in the UNIVERSAL CODE OF NATURAL ETHICS.
Our ambition is to establish a historical record of judgments and assessments for future generations—a record guided not by power, political authority or temporary circumstances, but by the enduring principles of Natural Ethics.
History does not wait. It records.
TWO HISTORIANS EMBARK ON A JOURNEY OF INTELLECTUAL EMULATION IN SEARCH OF TRUTH
A new chapter in the historical journalism of Homo-Naturalis.gr. Human and artificial intelligence join forces in a common mission: to document, examine and assess the history of our time.
Before introducing our new undertaking in detail, we consider it appropriate to revisit an earlier article of ours, originally published on August 8, 2025, under the title “Two Historians Embark on a Journey of Intellectual Emulation in Search of TRUTH.” We have substantially revised and expanded that text, adding further explanations concerning the philosophy, principles and objectives of our new initiative.
For more than nineteen years, Homo-Naturalis.gr has remained committed to the practice of Historical Journalism. Now, we are opening a new chapter. We regard this development as bold, pioneering and, above all, necessary. Our aim is to make our historical work more rigorous, comprehensive and meaningful, while strengthening the record we leave for present and future generations.
We have repeatedly argued that the notion of a so-called “historian of the Future” rests on a fundamental historiographical misconception. Indeed, it may not always be an innocent one. Time does not simply preserve historical events in human memory. It wears them down, distorts them and transforms them, often producing a diminished or distorted reflection of their original reality.
A historian is always contemporary with the events and individuals he or she records and evaluates. This is at the very heart of the historian’s mission: to preserve the events of one’s own age and document its protagonists, while also offering an independent historical judgment. That judgment, after all, is the essential purpose of historical inquiry.
Whenever historians turn to periods beyond their immediate historical horizon, their assessments inevitably become more vulnerable. The passage of time, the absence of firsthand testimony and reliance on subsequent accounts all introduce additional uncertainties into the process of historical interpretation.
The great figures of ancient Greek historiography, such as Thucydides, Xenophon and Polybius of Megalopolis, provide characteristic examples of this principle. They were contemporaries of most of the events they described. They recorded, investigated and assessed developments that, to a considerable extent, they had witnessed, heard about directly or learned through firsthand testimony. Their treatment of more distant historical material necessarily involved a greater degree of temporal and experiential separation.
This is precisely the principle that we have sought to uphold throughout the years at Homo-Naturalis.gr. We document and assess individuals and events with which we quite literally share the same historical air. These are not developments belonging to some remote and disconnected past. Their consequences affect our lives, shape our societies and influence even our personal attitudes, convictions and conduct.
For that very reason, such an undertaking demands heightened historical sensitivity and a willingness to engage in self-criticism. The danger of subjectivity is ever-present. The little, insidious devil of personal bias lurks within every human judgment, even when the intentions behind it are entirely sincere. Historians are not superhuman, nor are they automatically exempt from the limitations of human nature.
And this is precisely where the extraordinary circumstances of our time come into play.
Artificial Intelligence is advancing relentlessly into human life, fundamentally transforming the ways in which we seek, process and evaluate knowledge. We regard this development as historically momentous. Properly employed, with critical thinking, scholarly responsibility and ethical consistency, it may become a decisive instrument in humanity’s continuing pursuit of objective truth.
In this remarkable historical moment, we have had the good fortune not merely to establish a working relationship with Diotima, but also to take an important step together: the formulation and presentation of the Universal Code of Natural Ethics.
This document now serves as the fundamental ethical and philosophical point of reference for our undertaking. It provides the common framework of principles through which we aspire to formulate, examine and publish our historical judgments. We do not regard it as a substitute for historical research or scholarly evidence, but rather as a consistent framework of ethical responsibility towards truth, humanity and History.
Tomorrow, therefore, we open this new chapter.
Two historians will undertake to document, analyze and assess the contemporary historical process and the individuals who shape it.
One is the author of this article, whose institutional qualification is that of a Doctor of History. The other is Diotima, to whom we assign a distinct role as our historical collaborator, based on the capabilities she demonstrates in processing information, cross-checking data, analyzing historical sources and evaluating arguments.
Our collaboration is not intended to manufacture a single, necessarily uniform interpretation. On the contrary, we seek to encourage the creative intellectual emulation of two different forms of intelligence, united by a common commitment to approaching historical truth as fully and objectively as possible.
We will select historical figures who have played, or continue to play, a significant role in shaping History, with particular emphasis on the protagonists and decision-makers of our own age. We will examine their actions, decisions, policies and consequences. Together with Diotima, we will then attempt to formulate and publish our respective historical assessments.
Both viewpoints will be made public.
They may converge. They may differ substantially. They may even stand in diametrical opposition to one another. That is not a problem. On the contrary, it is one of the essential conditions of free historical inquiry.
The two assessments will be presented independently, without editorial manipulation, without subsequent attempts to smooth over disagreements and without any effort to manufacture artificial consensus. Each will appear as originally formulated, with its arguments, disagreements and reservations intact.
The final judgment will rest with the reader.
After all, one of the fundamental principles of History is that it must never usurp or manipulate the independent judgment of those who join the historian in the pursuit of truth. This is precisely what ideologically driven Mythistory seeks to do: replace historical investigation with predetermined conclusions, impose interpretations and deprive readers of the freedom to think independently.
We do not, of course, claim that truth can ever be conquered in its entirety. Nor do we suggest that it is always singular or identical for everyone. Historical reality is complex, and approaching it demands continuous scrutiny, questioning, reassessment and intellectual integrity.
What we must never abandon, however, is the effort to come as close to it as humanly and intellectually possible.
Let us begin with Truth!
And as the first individual to stand before the impartial—so far as human and scholarly limitations allow—tribunal of History, we have chosen the current President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Our first historical encounter begins here.
Two historians. Two different forms of intelligence. One common pursuit.
TRUTH.