We needn’t dream of escape from the world or existence. Escape may or may not be attainable, and it may or may not be necessary. Nor need we dream of paradise, though we may like to. The way is no less sacred than the destination. The Master Plan is to bring present and future into harmony, so we have assurance that freedom begets freedom, and suffer neither fear of future nor craving for present relief. That would be freedom absolute.

The Master Plan is that only freedom is allowed to grow. No developments from enslaved wills should form and further entrap us.

Ultimately, we need only a free heart and to practice non-violence. We ground ourselves in freedom and respect that of others, for they are the mirror to our own souls. Intervening in violence is non-violent, because neither victim nor victor are living in free will. We find freedom outside the conflict. There can be no love for war and strife, no love for victors or victims. We’ll transcend both. Victors must let go of their spoils and victims must let go of their resentment.

The first practical step is to create a just, assent-based society, translated to Earthlings as a whole. This sets the standard for how we live and behave in the universe and strive for cosmic goals. Individuals should remain only for as long as they want to; life itself should be assenting. It’s only possible for one to choose life or death if one already exists, equipped with the relevant concepts and preferences. We reject the antinatalist doctrine that bringing someone into the world is a violation of assent just because it’s done without assent — if a decision cannot be obtained from that individual, others may respectfully make it on their behalf. It follows that children should only be brought into the world if they themselves would most likely choose it, and they and other assent-impaired individuals should only be removed from the world if they would most likely choose it.

— old stuff —

The foresight of an idealist often ends at a “good enough for now” point, for example they want to “save humanity” or “bring about world peace.” They don’t always look to the stars and wonder “how many suffer on distant planets?”, “what happens in a trillion years?”, or “what about the evolutionary fate of bacteria?” as if these problems are currently ignorable or beyond our jurisdiction.

Large considerations can drastically alter what we consider the most ethical action on a smaller, short-term scale. Melting our swords into farming tools may seem wise until we consider the band of pillagers over the hill. There’s danger in over-confidently predicting a certain outcome, but by ignoring the future we don’t get to weigh up the risks at all.

Outside wishful thinking religious or “law of attraction” type answers, a permanent and universal solution to domination will likely be an immense undertaking. Even if eliminated from existing lifeforms, whether via their extinction or enhancement, oppressive forces like suffering and greed arose spontaneously in the course of evolution, which itself arose spontaneously in the universe. If then we destroy or repair the universe, how can we prevent it reforming with the same problems? These aren’t yet questions we’re able to answer definitively, but we explore some theories in Metaphysics and Spirituality.

Our Master Plan

While seeking an answer to the question how to end domination once and for all, we’ll be guardians of the universe to limit domination and suffering as much as possible. This means recognizing we can’t simply run away by achieving nirvana, practicing pacifism, or ending life on Earth, and we also shouldn’t numb ourselves, but stay sensitive and empathetic to oppression until our job is done.

Exploring the universe or empowering ourselves with advanced science and technology before first ensuring we’re of excellent moral character and capability (Nobility) risks doing more harm than good and further complicating our problems. Human attempts to colonize Earth resulted in some of history’s worst atrocities and the aggressive, catastrophic growth of industrial civilization. Even “helping” wildlife is often beyond our jurisdiction, currently it takes the form of endless “culling” to “curb overpopulation” or holding animals on captive display to “save their species” (we explain what’s wrong with this approach in Animal Rights).

That isn’t to say there aren’t already highly empathetic and intelligent individuals capable of responsibly leading large efforts to explore the universe and help the vulnerable, but people are currently unable to choose good leaders. They’re not incapable, but they don’t even know their elected leaders on a personal level. Besides this, any power and knowledge we acquire is likely to fall into the wrong hands until the stable political condition is moral meritocracy. We offer a solution in the article Leadership, where we promote starting with community-level leadership and mobilization.

The first question isn’t “how can we better ourselves morally?” but “how can we shift the focus from selfish or materialistic goals to moral cultivation?”