Abstract in SeSotho Dinonyana ga di o fela di akalala lefaufaung go ya go ile. Di a boya. Di tla lefaseng go hwetša ka moka tseo di ka di phedišago le go phediša mafotwane ka tšona. Ga di ke di botšiša gore ke ka baka la eng ge di phela mono lefaseng. Le gona ga di itshwenye go nyakišiša gore go tla bjang di be mo di bego gona lefaseng. Ee, go ba gona ga tsona lefaseng go feleletša e le ga re tsebe. Go tseba mang gore di tšwa kae le gore di ya kae ge di hwile? Dipotšišo tše re a di butšiša mabapi le bophelo bja motho gomme ga gona yo a tsebang karabo ya go phala tše dingwe kamoka. Dinonyana di a ja eupya ga di leme, di a nwa eupya ga di a tliša le lerothodi le tee lefaseng, di humana tse kamoka di di phedisang di sa šome le go soma. Semaka ke gore tše dingwe tša tšona di fela di raka tše dingwe dijong. Bjang ka gore di a swana, ga go nale ye tee ya tšona e tlisitšeng sejo lefaseng le gona ga go na le ye tee ya tšona ye erileng e tla lefaseng ya tšwelela a swere seripana sa lefase moka ya oketša bogolo bja lefase le ka sona. Le ge re fela re ikhantsha ka gore rena batho re a nagana nnete ke gore gantshi re phela go ya ka semaka se sa dinonyana. Re hlokelana botho mola tše kamoka lefaseng re di neilwe gore re di abelane, re phedišane ka tšona. Ye ke yona tabakgolo, modu wa sengwalwa se. Ga re ithuteng go phela setho ka nako tšohle. Abstract in English This chapter consists of parts one and two. For this reason, the abstract is unduly long. The line of argument of each part is reflected here so the reader has a full picture instead of stumbling into another abstract somewhere in the middle of the chapter. Part one is a depiction of the situation to which ubu-ntu responds in part two. I take the liberty to use the I and the academic “we” interchangeably whenever the context warrants. Birds do not hover eternally in the air. They land on Mother Earth to feed, to sleep and to build nests to nurture their young ones. It seems that none of them ever poses the question why is it that they are birds at all. Also, it appears that no one of them ever wonders why they are wherever they may be on Mother Earth. Their existence is as contingent as that of all human beings. They come into being without their choice and they retreat to wherever nobody knows, it might even be to nowhere when they die. Aviary logic directs the life of the birds. They feed from what they never planted, they drink from the wells that they never fill up, they breathe the air freely and enjoy the warmth of the sun without having made any contribution to it. For them, land—taken together with water, air and the sun—to which they never added a speck of dust, is life. When they feed, one or more of them attempts to chase away the others as if the food and the land on which it is scattered belongs to them. Their supreme law is: Thou shalt not share. We shall decide upon your access to food and determine the quality and quantity that you may have. Yes, you may practice charity but only if you do not question our authority to impose binding laws upon you. Any careful and insightful observer of uncaged birds will affirm this scenario. It is the scenario that applies to the historical experience of human relations. Human beings—claimants to “reason” purportedly unique and exclusive to us in the order of beings—appear to be directed also by aviary logic as if “the selfish gene” (Dawkins. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press) is implanted in us. There are human beings—either individually or collectively—who have appointed themselves to be the authoritative lawgivers for everyone. They have launched colonialism, racism and slavery to make sure that economicide, epistemicide, religicide and “science” prevail. This chapter examines these issues critically and questions the authority of these self-appointed lawgivers. The dominant idea that there is only one “science” Western science, is questioned. Economicide is explored by focusing on “development” and the significance of the bank based on the Western philosophy of money epitomised in capitalism. Furthermore, it is argued that agriculture is for all yet, “development” continues to ensure that only some shall be fed when the rest go hungry. Epistemicide is examined showing how it continues to be used to promote and protect material and intellectual poverty imposed upon the indigenous peoples, in this case of Africa, conquered in the unjust wars of Western colonisation. The Western style of democracy—adversarial politics—is used as an example of epistemicide. Today, Western democracy is substituted by timocracy. It is critiqued under the prism of the co-operative consensual non-party democracy of indigenous Africa. The argument against religicide is predicated on the distinction between belief and knowledge. The former falls withing the domain of metaphysics in terms of the philosophy of religion. Accordingly, any divinity posited in this domain is equal to any other. There is, therefore, no religion that is superior to any other despite the invocation of “superstition” to claim the superiority of some religions. The contestation between the indigenous religions of Africa—the religions of abaphansi, badimo or the living-dead—and Christianity (We take the view, like Wole Soyinka (1999. The burden of memory: the muse of forgiveness, 32. New York: Oxford University Press), that “the convention that capitalizes this [Christianity/Christian] and other so-called world religions is justified only when the same principle is applied to other religions, among them, the Orisa”.) must be seen against this background. Religicide is also discussed from the perspective of two questions. One is whether or not there is any ethical justification for the imposition of one’s religion on others by force. The answer to this is based on a variety of sources including the Patristic tradition (Patrologia Graeca et Latina). Another is the specific reference to “give us this day our daily bread” found in The Lord’s Prayer. What does this supplication really mean when for at least 92 years, agriculture worldwide has managed to over produce food to feed everyone on Mother Earth daily yet there are billions—“the bottom billion”—who are hungry and starve daily? Based on the philosophy of ubu-ntu, the thesis defended in this essay is that human relations in the context of the historic structural poverty and wealth that divide the South and the North must submit to the necessity to go through an ethical revolution. The basic motive force of this revolution shall come from different angles but revolves around the indigenous African principle that obra ye nnoboa (life is mutual aid). This principle, stated in the Akan language, is the foundation of the ethics of ubuntu. It is not just a mere desideratum. It is an ethical necessity of our time in the long and unfolding struggle for truthfulness, justice and peace for all. The prospective ethical revolution is more than a signal. It is a demand that justice and peace are either for all or none.