For almost fifty years scholars have expressed their concern for the future existence of mankind and proposed ways of securing life in the years to come. Most of the declarations made by these movements do not, however, constitute viable instructions for change: they are rather moral discussion papers, containing much wishful thinking, or a list of flaws people are perceived to commit in their relation to Nature. All noble sentiments and efforts to understand and resolve the current crisis while ignoring the split of the planet into two opposing systems-Culture and Nature-are doomed to failure. The currently prevailing anthropocentric vision of the world is incorrect, not only in its details and in its specific arguments, but also in its deepest underlying principles-in short, in its entirety. That is this draft of a Constitution for the Earth is based on the ontological assumption that human Culture is not a continuation of natural evolution by different means. Culture is an artificial system opposing Nature. If it were set as Nature is in a biophilous, life-reverencing way, then Culture’s self-activity would grow in a desirable way. Culture would respect Nature and both systems would co-operate at a new level.