An Oxford biologist ponders the question high tech inevitably poses: and offers many stabs at answers, ending with:
The fact that chemicals can arise from the austere confines of an ancient molecular soup, and through the cold laws of evolution, combine into organisms that care for other lifeforms (that is, other bags of chemicals) is the true miracle.
Some ancients believed that God made us in “his image”. Perhaps they were right in a sense, as empathy and love are truly godlike features, at least among the benevolent gods.
Cherish those traits and use them now, Poppy, as they hold the solution to our ethical dilemma. It is those very attributes that should compel us to improve the wellbeing of our fellow humans without lowering the condition of what surrounds us.
Anything less will pervert (our) nature.
Manuel Berdoy, “Have humans evolved beyond nature – and do we even need it?” at The Conversation
Sorry, Manuel. Evolutionary psychologists have “seen through” empathy, etc. It is all just a way to spread our selfish genes. If there is no Out There out there, there is no reason to prefer one morality over another except as a personal preference or political calculation.
At ground level: You would prefer not to be eaten but the bear would prefer to eat you. Good luck converting him. If naturalism is true and really catches on, good luck converting anyone, even Poppy. On the other hand, try the question again.
See also: “The evolutionary psychologist knows why you vote — and shop, and tip at restaurants”