A Big Decision That Is Nagging Me

[TomasM]

I've been working on this new technology for a long time. I started on it many years ago by asking a simple question - why are wicked people in control and what has led to this outcome. As I researched this question I began to get clarity but the strange part is that many of the answers to questions I was researching started to come to me from everywhere. For example, small talk in the elevator would lead to an answer or a song on the radio would be so specific that I couldn't ignore it. People who I didn't know would literally show up at my door with answers. Needless to say, I'm not posting right now about my revelation only providing the context that led me to this moment.

Eventually I was able to fully understand the answer to my question with all of the details on both a macro and micro scale - I don't see this as uncommon for an INFJ. Great, the world has wicked people who are inflicting their will on all of us yet knowing the details really didn't provide any solace. This led me to my next question, one that is actually predictable in retrospect - what can I do to change or fix this problem. Again, the answers began flowing in from everywhere and though I mostly had my answer to the question relatively quickly I was missing some skills that I needed if I was ever going to do anything transformative.

Today I have have the skills and I have the solution, yet I'm faced with a cost that sunk me in quicksand. The cost isn't monetary, in fact it costs very little money. The cost pertains to people and how making a change with such magnitude can create undetermined outcomes. If I give this "gift" or "curse" to the world, how would people use it and given that people have become so traumatized (through generational war and poor leadership) would they introduce tremendous chaos and destruction OR would they transform collectively?

A good analogy is one of nuclear energy. The scientist created it and then it was turned into a way to destroy so many people. This is unacceptable.

The technology I have created is quite simple but very powerful. I feel as though the only reason I have it is because I was led to this point by a higher power and so in some regards I feel a responsibility to continue moving forward. In contrast, I don't trust people to behave morally, virtuous, or with good ethics given the state of everything everywhere. That made me ask a few questions:

1. Do I really have the choice if it was given to me by a higher power?
2. If I choose yes and everything goes terribly bad is it ok because the foresight of the supernatural can see that which we cannot see?
3. If I choose not to proceed am I giving into a widespread fear that has been created globally and is it ok to allow that type of behavior to go unchecked?
4. If I choose to proceed and the wicked power uses this tech in junction with AI could that set us as a people back a thousand or more years?

I'm sure I am leaving out other questions but each of those questions is a heavy load individually.

It's a bit like choosing between fighting a war or trying to ignore it? If you fight then people will die, If you don't fight then your life will never overcome the wicked. There is no GOOD answer and that is why I'm asking YOU. I know the INFJ because I've developed along a lifeline that has been challenging yet rewarding. I'm posting here because I want your feedback. Because each of you has foresight with value and wisdom that collectively exceeds anything I could possibly derive on my own.

One last option: I can release this technology on a small scale in a place that is somewhat hidden and protected. I know that this is only delaying everything because people would eventually leak it and I wouldn't know when, how, or to what end that would result.

What would you do?

 

[aeon]

What would you do?

Nothing, because wicked is a judgement which is entirely dependent upon one’s perspective, and willingness to pass judgement.

Not to mention one’s own blind spots, errors in cognition, and one’s limits of reason and ability to sense.

Often stated as prudence, discernment, and so on.

To that end, I only concern myself with what I actually have (limited) control of: myself.

The rest of the world, and the creatures in it, will do as they do, in accordance with their agency and autonomy. That’s not for me to decide, and I appreciate being shown the same non-concern.

That said, actions of non-consent are concerning, but that’s a different discussion.

Acting as if good and evil are real, and that I know the difference, and can actually do something about it is unreasonable, the epitome of hubris, and surely a fool’s errand.

So nothing.

But as I said, you do you. Perhaps I know better for myself. I certainly do not, for you.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[TomasM]

Nothing, because wicked is a judgement which is entirely dependent upon one’s perspective, and willingness to pass judgement.

I don't see it as passing judgement but rather a recognition of the behaviors in which a person or group chooses. There ARE wicked behaviors in this world and some people and groups engage in these behaviors consistently and without remorse. If behavior was plotted then we would see a normal distribution with consistent wicked behavior on one end and saint like behavior on the other. I don't see it as passing judgement to call a potato a potato any more than identifying a wicked person as a classification of their behavior. When I see a person that is a serial killer who destroys lives by torture, killing, and raping without remorse then I have no alternative to classify it as such. Equally, a civilized society classifies it as wicked, heinous and worthy of being dealt with in a stringent manner. Now, if you take that behavior and you give it to a group that has unlimited and power and resources then you have the group of people that I recognize in my considerations. This group does exist and whether I choose to use a word or a number classification to identify it seems a moot point.

You said: "Acting as if good and evil are real, and that I know the difference, and can actually do something about it is unreasonable, the epitome of hubris, and surely a fool’s errand." - I believe that most people can identify the difference and it is a reasonable assumption to make in a dialogue. I don't see it as a fools errand but rather a responsibility by everyone in society to play an active role in the world in which we create collectively. But that's just me, so you do you and we can agree to disagree.

Honestly, I didn't expect to have a conversation on the difference between good and evil in this thread as it seems so obvious to me. I do however appreciate your response and will take a note of it.

Much of what your have stated suggests an element of nihilism. By chance do you relate to that type of thought? If it is then I won't need your input any further as it is not helpful in my considerations.

 

[aeon]

Simply consider, to some a terrorist, to others, a freedom fighter.

As I said, acts of non-consent are their own discussion, but regardless, how are we to discern malice versus ignorance?

Civilization is the thinnest of veneers.

I agree with you that each and every has a responsibility. I limit that to myself, inasmuch as I cannot rightly accept responsibility for anyone else.

And no, I am definitely not a nihilist, but it is understandable I might be mistaken for one.

My sentiment might be better explained by my trauma history, thoughts on consent, regarding people as ends, and never as means, and what might be loosely described as Epicurean preferences.

In any event, I wish you well, and mean no harm.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[TomasM]

Simply consider, to some a terrorist, to others, a freedom fighter.

To your point, I don't need to classify a person as a terrorist or a freedom fighter to know that killing and bombing is wrong. I'm not in favor of either. The old saying, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," holds a bit of weight in this instance.

There are different schools of thought when discussing ethics and all of them seem to classify using people as a means to an end as immoral to various degrees. Mixing moral behavior and philosophy is a dangerous game. Many of the western philosophers had their origins in ancient Greece - which was known for its war like behavior with everyone in that area. Yet today their thoughts on ethics are still highly valued and taught at western universities. The juxtaposition of these two things really brings to the forefront your perspective on classifying good and evil.

You said: "how are we to discern malice versus ignorance?" - Consistent poor behavior is probably the best way. If a person / group is engaging in wicked behavior once then sometime it can give pause and leniency but when it is repeatedly for generations then it is most certainly malice. Even if it is ignorance, society doesn't give a free pass and then wait to see if they are capable of not repeating that behavior. If someone is ignorant and kills someone while driving drunk then there is still consequences.

I don't take your response as harmful on the surface because it does have value in that it is what I somewhat expected from the masses. Most people are only concerned with their own self interest and removing their engagement from everything until it affects them. I see this as a reactive approach and that is not an option when dealing with the type of people I have to consider. I do however hope that your status as a long time member and administrator of this forum wont deter others from engaging because I really am interested in feedback.

That's why I posed the question to the INFJ's on this forum. That "J" at the end provides a level of classification / compartmentalization and corresponding wisdom that is of interest to me. The "I" provides the deep thought through the NT loop and results in a different level of assessment. This is not a judgement of you, only that I'm looking for feedback from those that I know can recognize my perspective and concerns.

 

[Matty]

For the most part, people get what they seek.

If few want power over others, they're likely to achieve that in some degree.
If many people seek certainty (good or bad), they empower emphatic leaders.

There's something very orderly about things, insofar as un-virtuous people end up ruled by tyrants... and they absolutely deserve it. Tyrants end up ruling detestable people, and they deserve that disappointment.

Personally, I have zero interest in "technology" which could disrupt the natural order of things. The wicked are each others' punishment. The wicked also purify the desire of the virtuous: you can't be both truly humble and popular; you can't be truly kind and have people obey you with obsequies.

I encourage you to develop gratitude for your difficulties, instead of "technologies" intended to amplify your resentment.

 

[John K]

@TomasM I can't get to grips with your question in the way you have expressed it. Who are the wicked people, what are they in control of, what makes them wicked? Is your scope just within one nation or is it global? For instance what is considered wicked amongst leaders is going to be very different between the USA, China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Namibia, etc.

Supposing that you really do have an effective way of rooting and starting to establish a new moral framework amongst the nations .... The trouble is that you aren't the first to attempt this - Christ's 'Love your neighbour as yourself' is one that has endured down the centuries, yet even something as simple and obvious as this has not succeeded in eradicating evil. But some of the others who have tried are people like Napoleon and Hitler, Mao and Lenin, and if we are charitable we could argue that they were well intentioned - yet they have gone down into history as some of the most evil people the world has known. Gellert Grindelwald in the Harry Potter world is a mythical example of someone who tried to become a tyrant using 'magical' means for the 'greater good'.

But maybe these are missing the mark - do tell us more about what you see as the problem, and a bit more about your solution.

 

[TomasM]

There's something very orderly about things, insofar as un-virtuous people end up ruled by tyrants... and they absolutely deserve it. Tyrants end up ruling detestable people, and they deserve that disappointment.

That did cross my mind. That the tyrants, and dark triads of the world eat each other in their quest for power. That if given the ability to metaphorically knock the king off the top of the mountain, there would likely not be a hesitation.

The only downside to this is that the collateral damage would be high - not just among that group of people but it would extend across the territories where power is held.

I am a little surprised about your interest in technology. All technology upsets the natural order of its time and it's not uncommon for the masses to fear the outcome of the new. Today it is AI but in the recent past it was communication, electricity, and the automobile to name a few.

I do however favor your perspective because it brings some good points. Technology, can be a great equalizer when it i disruptive at a high enough level. That even if the wicked aren't removed entirely their power can be reduced by the challenges faced among their own "peers". This reminds me of Julius Caesar and how he met his end.

 

[Wyote]

 

[TomasM]

1. Who are the wicked people, what are they in control of, what makes them wicked? Is your scope just within one nation or is it global? For instance what is considered wicked amongst leaders is going to be very different between the USA, China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Namibia, etc.

2. Supposing that you really do have an effective way of rooting and starting to establish a new moral framework amongst the nations .... The trouble is that you aren't the first to attempt this - Christ's 'Love your neighbour as yourself' is one that has endured down the centuries, yet even something as simple and obvious as this has not succeeded in eradicating evil. But some of the others who have tried are people like Napoleon and Hitler, Mao and Lenin, and if we are charitable we could argue that they were well intentioned - yet they have gone down into history as some of the most evil people the world has known. Gellert Grindelwald in the Harry Potter world is a mythical example of someone who tried to become a tyrant using 'magical' means for the 'greater good'.

3. But maybe these are missing the mark - do tell us more about what you see as the problem, and a bit more about your solution.

1. The specifics of who the wicked are is not important in this discussion as that would be a very long side discussion. I will say that their group is not confined to a nation and their power blankets the globe.

I am not the first to make an attempt with this type of technology. I'm just one of the first to have discovered it's potential while recognizing the outcome of those that attempted to pioneer it before me. The list is not short.

2. This is absolutely correct. There is a good and bad within all of us and that can be recognized in the teachings of Christ. I am not and would never attempt something so grande as to change the nature of people. The Bible does mention not to kill and the leaders who are ruling through war and destruction are wicked by that definition. When I say that, war comes in many shapes and is not confined to the battlefield of generals.

This reminds me of the Matrix movie where the Architect poses a question to the Oracle, "How long do you think this peace can last." The Oracle responds, "As long as it can."

With that in mind, I have no desire to create a new moral framework or be a leader of people. When I began this journey in 2008 many people were facing some serious concerns and it became clear that greed and power was destroying the lives of many at an accelerated pace. That's why I asked my initial question and how it led to the corresponding questions.

The perspectives of various countries and cultures is not going to change with technology. I do however believe that technology of this magnitude can bring prosperity OR destruction based on leadership. Leaders know the difference between right and wrong but that has not altered the plight of greed and grandeur by many.

3. The problem: Should I release this this technology and how do I release it with the minimum amount of harm while maximizing the benefits to the masses. Creating or establishing an equilibrium also falls within this vision but I know that this is not something that is definitive when complete.

The solution: Is primarily focused on power technology. Very small, simple, and with tremendous capacity. I have also considered the combination of currency and power collectively to achieve the goal - this is not the first time it has been done. Similarly, I am very aware how this technology can give a heartbeat to AI and that gives me considerable pause. I have the means and access to achieve these goals / solutions but my most recent hesitations have been more focused on the outcome of my actions. I need to see beyond my own ability and I recognize that a group of INFJ's have great vision and awareness. I'm not seeking to control this dialogue, I want it to flow and be inclusive such that it comes from within and without hesitation.

 

[TomasM]

That made me laugh. I don't currently have any spear pointed at me and I'd like to keep it that way. I do not seek power, celebrity, status or even wealth, but I do have to be prepared to accept those responsibilities unless I identify a way to delegate to each of these obstacles. Being an introvert does have tremendous downside and limitations.

That's a great metaphor but shields are swords are like ants on an anthill in this era. Though now that I reflect, perhaps this is exactly what I needed to hear. Influence could be the answer if it alters the tide and shifts the battle to a state where it is no longer required. In fact, that is the best idea that I have heard. Sun Tsu would be proud of you Wyote.

 

[Wyote]

Thanks for understanding @TomasM
Whatever route you choose, you are but one ant with your own agency

 

[HeavyNeuralPayload]

This is certainly thought-provoking, has piqued my curiosity, and also feels like a heavy burden to have to carry. I was reminded of an episode of The Outer Limits (from the 90's reboots) but regrettably cannot recall which specific one it was.

1. Do I really have the choice if it was given to me by a higher power?
2. If I choose yes and everything goes terribly bad is it ok because the foresight of the supernatural can see that which we cannot see?
3. If I choose not to proceed am I giving into a widespread fear that has been created globally and is it ok to allow that type of behavior to go unchecked?
4. If I choose to proceed and the wicked power uses this tech in junction with AI could that set us as a people back a thousand or more years?

Without more context it's difficult to answer these questions, but I'll try while keeping the nuclear example at the forefront of my mind:
1. I think you definitely have a choice. Not sure if it distills down to most likely whether the boon or bane will prevail - or whether boon prevails but only after the far side of bane. You may come to regret acting, but you also may never act and live to regret that as well, always wondering what might have been.
2. I think there's a way to make peace with a terrible outcome. That seems to land outside the locus of your control so it's a place I personally wouldn't dwell for very long if it went that way. Unless that seems the most likely outcome, or if it's orders of magnitude worse than the benefit would have been, you would have acted with a positive aim. If it does go poorly, in what ways might you be able to mitigate damage or pick up the pieces? I would do a full failure premortem.
3. I think not proceeding is a viable option as well. I recently learned about "the worst inventor ever" - Thomas Midgley - who aimed to solve one problem but in doing so created a much larger one. It's not always easy to foresee the way in which things may unfold as a consequence of our actions. I'm fairly confident that if he'd had a crystal ball and could see the long-term effects of his inventions he would have gone about things differently.
4. There are reasons that certain substances, compounds, etc. are regulated. If it's a kind of technology that's readily available and could do great harm by just a few unstable people it would make sense to try and have safeguards in place. Unsure how practical that may be in your scenario.

One last option: I can release this technology on a small scale in a place that is somewhat hidden and protected. I know that this is only delaying everything because people would eventually leak it and I wouldn't know when, how, or to what end that would result.

This may be the way, though you often can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it's out. It has also been noted that the same or similar technologies throughout history have very often been co-developed at around the same time in different locations around the world by different inventors. You might also consider that this technology could already have been developed and someone or some group may be facing a similar dilemma.

What would you do?

I've become more cynical - particularly about technology - as I've grown older. Overall I believe that people are genuinely good, and want to do good things. Nowadays it feels like we're all standing in a room full of powderkegs where too many people with shaky hands are holding the matches. I wonder at some level if it's always felt like this though.

Fire can warm, but fire can also burn. At the end of the day we're all here because some cavemen became unafraid of it enough to be able to harness it - so if anything I'd probably lean slightly in favor of implementation. If there's any way to integrate protections/safeguards against accidents or bad actors, that would certainly be prudent. I also know myself and I'd probably live out the rest of my days torturing myself in wonderment about what might have been.

 

[TomasM]

Thanks for understanding @TomasM
Whatever route you choose, you are but one ant with your own agency

Ants are communal Wyote. None of them are alone and with an individual agency unless they choose exile. I do have to believe that a new colony and / or paradigm is possible in this instance. I KNOW that I can't do this alone.

You are full of pearls today.

 

[Wyote]

I meant ant in the singular ability sense (know your individualistic limitations).
Of course I know what ants are about, and I agree things aren't accomplished alone.

 

[Wyote]

So far you have said a lot of nothing and wasted everyone's time in this thread.
I'm not sure why you made that decision, but it does not bode well for your decision making abilities in pursuit of this mysterious nebulous alleged technologically based agenda.
I'm willing to bet there are at least ten other people out there with some variant of this "technology" who have already progressed further than you in its production and institution.

I don't say this to be mean, I just don't think you are existing in reality with many of your frames of thought.
I truly want whatever this is to come to pass if it is capable of having a net positive on the world, just as it has come to pass for nuclear power.
As of right now the "technology" doesn't even exist in accordance to your own parameters.
Speaking about things that don't exist and not presenting any sort of tangible step by step blueprint and plan forward is just snake oil.
Get honest with yourself about feasibility and actual potential.
It's easy to hide inaction behind some veil of darkness/perceived threats/hurdles.
If your idea is truly brilliant, it will find a way to emerge in the world with or without you.

 

[TomasM]

This is certainly thought-provoking, has piqued my curiosity, and also feels like a heavy burden to have to carry. I was reminded of an episode of The Outer Limits (from the 90's reboots) but regrettably cannot recall which specific one it was.

That makes me happy, though curiosity is what got me in this position. Yes, it feels like the weight of the world internally and I often find myself in a position of avoidance (not uncommon for an INFJ). Let me know if you find the episode, I'm interested given that knowledge often comes from the most obscure places.

Without more context it's difficult to answer these questions, but I'll try while keeping the nuclear example at the forefront of my mind:
1. I think you definitely have a choice. Not sure if it distills down to most likely whether the boon or bane will prevail - or whether boon prevails but only after the far side of bane. You may come to regret acting, but you also may never act and live to regret that as well, always wondering what might have been.

Regret is not something that enters my mind when it comes to something bigger than me. I have to believe I was deemed worthy of this burden in a similar way that Frodo was in his journey. I do sometimes find regret in asking the question(s) originally but I have to dismiss it because I can't change the past. The proverbial genie has excited the bottle even if it is still somewhat limited by tether to me.

2. I think there's a way to make peace with a terrible outcome. That seems to land outside the locus of your control so it's a place I personally wouldn't dwell for very long if it went that way. Unless that seems the most likely outcome, or if it's orders of magnitude worse than the benefit would have been, you would have acted with a positive aim. If it does go poorly, in what ways might you be able to mitigate damage or pick up the pieces? I would do a full failure premortem.

When considering this I look at the existing state of the world. I listen carefully to what people are saying and there appears to be a common theme where people feel enveloped by things out of their control. At times, I feel like I could be pouring gasoline on a fire with this potential but my foresight isn't good enough to know if this is good or bad. Like I said, the vision of the supernatural exceeds my own. I don't have a crystal ball but I do have a conscious and inside I struggle to reconcile any outcome that is potentially catastrophic.

3. I think not proceeding is a viable option as well. I recently learned about "the worst inventor ever" - Thomas Midgley - who aimed to solve one problem but in doing so created a much larger one. It's not always easy to foresee the way in which things may unfold as a consequence of our actions. I'm fairly confident that if he'd had a crystal ball and could see the long-term effects of his inventions he would have gone about things differently.

My thinking / feeling often identifies this journey as a spiritual test. I've often found that not doing or saying anything is in fact the best option. I will look for information on TM and attempt to learn from this example.

4. There are reasons that certain substances, compounds, etc. are regulated. If it's a kind of technology that's readily available and could do great harm by just a few unstable people it would make sense to try and have safeguards in place. Unsure how practical that may be in your scenario.


This may be the way, though you often can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it's out. It has also been noted that the same or similar technologies throughout history have very often been co-developed at around the same time in different locations around the world by different inventors. You might also consider that this technology could already have been developed and someone or some group may be facing a similar dilemma.


I've become more cynical - particularly about technology - as I've grown older. Overall I believe that people are genuinely good, and want to do good things. Nowadays it feels like we're all standing in a room full of powderkegs where too many people with shaky hands are holding the matches. I wonder at some level if it's always felt like this though.

Fire can warm, but fire can also burn. At the end of the day we're all here because some cavemen became unafraid of it enough to be able to harness it - so if anything I'd probably lean slightly in favor of implementation. If there's any way to integrate protections/safeguards against accidents or bad actors, that would certainly be prudent. I also know myself and I'd probably live out the rest of my days torturing myself in wonderment about what might have been.

This could not be regulated. It is so simple that the idea alone could be reproduced in a garage with a small amount of money. Governments would be hard pressed to regulate given the potential of freedom to the masses. The resources are plentiful and it is only the idea that needs to surface for this to achieve critical mass.

I do believe it has been developed and the evidence suggests it is much further along than I am presently. The only difference is that my solution is extremely simple. I don't know who has this potential substitute because like me, it is being held in secret.

Yes, people are generally good but groups of people are chaotic, unstable, and unpredictable.

Technology is a double edged sword. I am searching for an answer but all of the options have a good and bad side. I can't make this about me and my own ego. If I have to let it develop underground to an end that is realized beyond my time then I can be ok with that. I just don't think we have much time to spare given the growing global climate - this has led me to let go of fear, though it continually tries to creep into my scope, and rely on what comes from within.

There are plenty of options and all of these have a downside where I can't envision the full outcome yet I still lean towards doing something rather than nothing. I'm just trying to come to a place where I think / feel that the outcome is worthy of consideration.

 

[Wyote]

Yep, I was right

 

[TomasM]

So far you have said a lot of nothing and wasted everyone's time in this thread.

You are welcome to believe it is nothing and you can call me a liar if you choose but I have no reason to lie and certainly nothing to gain by doing so.

Am I really wasting peoples time any more than the other conversations throughout this forum. Even if this was a thought experiment, which it is not, is there a downside to processing the possibility.

You have posted almost 42k times in this forum, have any of those post ever been focused on things which could not be realized in the world? How many of these could be classified "a waste of time"?

Like you, I'm not trying to be mean. I'm being honest, forthright, and with good intention. What more can you ask for from someone posting in a forum?

I'm not sure why you made that decision, but it does not bode well for your decision making abilities in pursuit of this mysterious nebulous alleged technologically based agenda.

How it bodes has not yet been determined but I find it very helpful this far. It's only mysterious to you because you don't know the specifics. Should I take that to mean that you don't value anything unless it is fully disclosed to you. How many people have you helped on this forum that you didn't have full access to the details of their lives and did you feel good about your decision to be helpful?

I'm willing to bet there are at least ten other people out there with some variant of this "technology" who have already progressed further than you in its production and institution.

That's encouraging. Obviously, I don't know what everyone else in the world is doing but I do know what I have done. I also know that you don't know there are ten other people and that is a complete fabrication on your part. That seems a bit critical and judgemental on your part.

I don't say this to be mean, I just don't think you are existing in reality with many of your frames of thought.
I truly want whatever this is to come to pass if it is capable of having a net positive on the world, just as it has come to pass for nuclear power.
As of right now the "technology" doesn't even exist in accordance to your own parameters.
Speaking about things that don't exist and not presenting any sort of tangible step by step blueprint and plan forward is just snake oil.
Get honest with yourself about feasibility and actual potential.
It's easy to hide inaction behind some veil of darkness/perceived threats/hurdles.
If your idea is truly brilliant, it will find a way to emerge in the world with or without you.

If you want that then be supportive in the same way you would to other posters within this forum. Try not to make assumptions about me and what I have done and don't make accusations about my person without due cause.

I can't just give you the idea given its nature. I certainly won't ever give you that information given your aggressive stance.

I came here to find value and perspective. I know it exists here and that's why I posted.

 

[Wyote]

idk why you wanna argue with me when the fact remains I was entirely correct ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not telling you to do or not do anything in particular, just affirming the truth and reality of the situation
Just trying to get you to move into a more realistic actionable state, but I see that's not possible at this time
Best of luck to you