The foresight of a so-called idealist often stops at an arbitrary “good enough” point, for example they want to “save humanity” or “bring about world peace.” They don’t look to the stars and wonder “how many out there are suffering on distant planets?” or “what happens to the universe in a trillion years?” or “what about the fate of bacteria?” as if these problems are ignorable.
Larger considerations can dramatically 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. How can one be content with a short-sighted worldview, risking unforeseen evil consequences to their actions?
At the heart of tyranny is the power of emotional coercion so we not only want to fulfill our desires, but need to, lest we suffer. Tyranny isn’t just the master whipping its slave, but the slave’s longing to be spared pain and exploitation. Tyranny isn’t just the river blocking our path, but our longing to cross the river. It is suffering, it is the conflict of not wanting something but enduring it anyway, or wanting something but being deprived of it. There is no sense of deprivation insofar as whims are concerned, since these are so frivolous and insignificant it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re fulfilled. And that is how we’d like it, to have either jolly, whimsical passions or no desires at all. Once tyranny as we define it is abolished, we may then (conditions permitting) focus on achieving our fun goals, with no time pressure and no painful yearning, no grief at failure and no relief at success.
Our Master Plan
Outside of wishful thinking like faith-based or “law of attraction” type answers, a permanent solution to the problem of suffering will likely be an immense undertaking. Even if it’s eliminated from all extant lifeforms, whether via their extinction or enhancement, it arose spontaneously along with life, which itself arose spontaneously from the universe, and may do so again.
We promote stewardship of the universe without a specific end goal in view, as it’s currently unclear which would prove the most successful, if any. We’ll have to seek relevant scientific knowledge toward a permanent solution. Crucially, however, one shouldn’t begin to explore the universe or empower themselves with advanced science and technology before first ensuring they’re of excellent moral character and capability, due to the great risk of doing more harm than good. We only need to remember the Colonial Era to know why this is so. Even attempting to save wild animals is beyond the jurisdiction of humankind until its nature is improved. That isn’t to say there aren’t already highly empathetic and intelligent individuals among humanity who would be capable of responsibly leading such efforts, but the masses can’t be relied on to choose the right leaders nor to help themselves from abusing any power they may have inherited from such leadership.
Given the above, our initial focus should be almost entirely on bettering the moral nature of humans and any other species whose efforts are required. Potentially violent power should be minimized at every step; humanity already has far more than it can be responsible for.
What exactly do we mean by “moral nature,” and how will we improve it? As suggested earlier, we mean both one’s moral character (their integrity) and moral capability (their ability to do good.) Both are crucial as no matter how well-intentioned one may be, one is still capable of grave error and uselessness. Integrity refers to how steadfast one is in holding themselves to their conscience. Moral capability includes intelligence, knowledge, bravery, healthiness, empathy, self-discipline, and other attributes, skills, and virtues which enable one to act heroically and without harm.
Logically and evidently, our traits have both a genetic and environmental basis. The two conditions work in tandem and neither should be neglected outright.