Challenges of Thrive

Our future may hold some philosophical challenges. Some of them we can predict now, others we will have to be prepared to encounter.

Here are a few that we've thought about...

Favorable Genetics
If there are genes we can pass on that convey to their future owners a reduced change of dying from cancer, of accumulating a disease or an increased overall health, are they bad?

If we were to allow people to select these kinds of genes in having a baby, what would you think of that child? That adult?

If we had a large population of individuals who had their genes selected at birth, who were healthier, better at making decisions and applying effort, living long lives, what would you think of that population?

There is a big problem laying in waite regarding genetics.

Our position: people should be treated the same regardless of how they got their genes, through intervention or by accident.

Favorable Behaviorism
If as a movement, we are successful in connecting a large population of individuals capable of making changes and taking control in their lives, what would we think of the others?

If, as a population, we were able to show we were healthier, smarter, more productive, more positive, less of anything relating to core problems, what would people think about us?

If a population refused to value sustainability or cooperation, what would we think about them?

Our Position: Those who are isolated must be rescued. Those who are suffering, who are being harmed, should be brought to freedom. We prioritize the rescue, because those we save will become masters of their own lives.

Non-violence
A key tenant of the "No Harm" absolute is that we do not harm each other, unless mortally provoked. if a community threatened us with that level of violence, how would we respond?

If someone took from us something of great communal value, and refuse to make recompense, how would we respond?

If a member of our community, for any reason, decided to inflict violence upon others, or upon themselves, how would we respond?

If a member of our community purposefully inflicted, slow, barely noticeable harm to someone else, how would we respond? What if someone else did the same thing, but wholly unaware of their behaviors, would our response be different?

Our position: Violence is only condemned as a response to a mortal threat. In that case, all discernment lies with the judgement of leadership.

Human Instinct
Instinct is a fascinating thing. It contains withing it primal urges for basic survival, breathing, seeking shelter, controlling resources, trusting no-one. Yet it also contains things we learn over long periods of time. Patterns of life that help us interpret larger complexities.

How can we ever hope to control our primary, competitive behaviors? How much of a hindrance will our basic instincts become to humanity's sustainability? When large populates persist in opposing sustainable measures, when they refuse to participate in sustainable communities, when they fight over natural resources, how will re respond?

And how will other religions, other cultures react to our presence and message? How will we thrive in a larger community of those who will instinctively reject our values? How will we grow among a population too focused on the past and personal problems to be aware of or concerned with global problems? How will we respond?

Our position: we should invest everything into helping those who request help, so that they may become masters of their own lives as well.