Level_One

The energy source was just an idealized representation of any piece of revolutionary technology. As for humanity deciding itself whether or not it's responsible enough to handle such technology, that is precisely the dilemma: what if it's not? I'm not sure what self-improvement has to do with a question about how to handle something that could affect all of humanity.

Imagine the following: You are an engineer. Today, you have achieved the invention of a source of unlimited free energy. Naturally, you are eager to share your invention with the world and bring humanity into a new age, but you give pause - should you? The dissemination of your technology would cure starvation and dehydration forever in less than a decade. Industry and progress would be catalyzed to unimaginable levels. The greatest technological barrier to human achievement will be overcome once and for all. However, does humanity in its current state of conscience run too great a risk of abusing the most powerful technology it has ever possessed? Instead of a tool of liberation, will your energy be a tool of enslavement? Instead of fueling industry without limits, will it fuel war without end? In a matter of a few generations, will it deliver the human race to its golden age, or its ultimate demise? Innocent millions will continue to suffer and die of all of the afflictions that your energy can relieve, so long as you withhold it. However, is it even less ethical to give this technology to a race that isn't prepared for it? As its inventor, you have a choice to make. ---------------------------------------- An interesting dilemma I've been pondering lately. What to do with great technology that could harm humanity if misused? Hide it away? Reserve it for a select responsible few? Release it in the hopes that its benefits will so greatly outweigh the risks that it will aid humanity faster than it can harm it (such as the internet so far). This is a fascinating topic to me, an ultimate challenge of responsibility, and I am very curious about the FDR community's perspective on it. Discuss!

So the pope believes that we have a right not to be offended which we should defend violently against nonviolent provocateurs who deserve it. Pope Francis: Enemy of Tolerance I wonder if that platform won him the papacy.

Very well, I will not insult the faith of others. I will instead strongly criticize the faith of others with all impartiality and let the faithful react as they may. With respect. Your popeliness.

Elegantly put.

This event is a profound piece of evidence for the possibility of a peaceful humanity. I felt I should share it with all of you. Yesterday, 3.7 million people marched in France to protest the Charlie Hepbo terrorist attack, in loud defiance of terrorism, censorship, oppression, and conflict. On that day, human beings marched together not only in spite of their differences, but in celebration of humanity as one unit. I highly recommend you read the full article yourself. Read about the event here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/paris-france-anti-terror-rally-massive-show-unity Lets discuss the significance of this event together.

By alienating a man with an opposing opinion you sabotage any possibility of changing his mind. That can not be called an "adult" conversation, as that is no conversation at all.

Shun the non-non-believer! Ye shall kneel before our lack of gods or by Dawrin be purged! But seriously, you're welcome here

I approve!

Well for example, take theft. Some people like to steal. However, almost nobody likes to be stolen from. So even if you like stealing, you can still recognize "do not steal" as a universally preferable behavior, because you yourself do not like to be stolen from. The rule of "don't steal" is something everybody, even a would-be thief, can agree with, prefer, and live by without ever infringing, to the benefit of everybody including themselves. Everybody can be happy under a "don't steal" system, even people who like to steal, but there will inevitably be people who are unhappy in a "steal" system. Therefore, it is good to not steal, because not stealing is universally preferable to stealing.

That would be the framework that tells whether actions are good or evil

Hey community, just checking to see if I have any members near me to meet up, hang out with and talk to Would be nice to have some friends close to home. I'm in SJ, if anyone is interested and available.

Well, the actual conditions of the meat packing plants are irrelevant. The plants are just a representation of a very real issue in industry: sanitation (and overall integrity of standards). The challenge of this argument, as it so often is in making the case for anarchism, lies in convincing people that the free market can replace the functions currently performed by the state. Firstly, manufacturers do have a selfish incentive to uphold standards. If a disgruntled employee happens to spread word that McDonalds is blending the factory mice into the burger to reduce manufacturing costs (and word will spread in the internet age), then McDonalds suffers a blow to its reputation that consumers' stomachs may never forgive. Secondly, in order to maintain a good reputation, foster a healthy image, and ease public suspicion, manufacturers are bound to institute policies to such ends. For example, they might encourage employees to look for any infringement of standards, by offering a monetary reward for the employee who does so successfully, serving as an incentive for the manufacturer to maintain standards and as a means to satisfy consumer suspicion. Could the manufacturer bribe said employee to stay quiet about the mice in the blending room? Yes, at a steep cost that serves as its own incentive to avoid the situation altogether. The manufacturer would have to compete with the value of selling the secret, with the fact that a company's reputation is priceless and therefore grants the person being bribed a nearly blank check, and the fact that if another employment opportunity ever becomes more profitable then the employee will leave and spill the secret anyway. The manufacturer is utterly doomed if more employees catch word. Could the manufacturer threaten the employee? It is hard to imagine an instance where this is possible. If they fire him, then he tells anyway. If they twist his arm too harshly, then he tells anyway. If they don't twist his arm enough, he tells anyway. A free-market version of the FDA may also be established to satisfy the demand for peace of mind in purchasing our food. A reputable inspection agency to slap its seal of approval on manufacturers who check out, paid for by the manufacturers themselves in order to enforce that healthy image. The grunts on the ground who are actually responsible for the inspection may also be offered bribes to overlook blender-mice, but then we have the above mess all over again. Always remember that the free market adapts. A very self-interested entrepreneur will always find a way. Let me know if any of this helps!

Greetings, fellow Jersian! Thank you for fighting the good fight on your front. I can offer you a little constructive criticism on the God thing, for what it's worth You recognize the error in valuing gut instinct over objective fact, which is great. I am curious, however, how you reconcile that with a belief in God, especially when you admit that you can not prove that he exists. Can you tell me exactly why it is you believe in God? I look forward to your reply.