The philosophy of Infinite Love describes the principles that we hold to be an essential part of our vision for a flourishing world. But what is a flourishing world exactly? To flourish is to "grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way; to thrive"), and in the most fundamental (but perhaps pedestrian) sense a flourishing world is one in which humanity is able to develop to it's fullest extent and reach ever-higher levels of human achievement. And indeed, there is no "end" to achievement, just as there is no "end" to learning — one can always learn more, as one can always achieve more. However, this definition while perhaps philosophically precise doesn't actually describe the features of a flourishing world. To us, such a world is one in which human potential is maximized, which is to say where freedom and the potential to innovate is maximized and suffering and waste is minimized.
More generally, we envision a flourishing world to be one in which people are free to pursue their passions without many of the concerns that burden us today, for example, concerns of not being able to receive the healthcare one needs, concerns of wealth (which are in essence concerns of comfort and whether one can provide for oneself and one's family), concerns of politics, concerns of crime, etc. In fact, any concern that one could have that the future may not go the way they want it to is a concern we'd like to address if possible so that people can live their lives as stress-free as possible, and therefore be in the best position to innovate and ultimately push humanity forward (if they so desire). Of course, some people may desire only to live a simple life, and there's nothing wrong with that. We aren't trying to suggest that there is only one path to take in life, only that the way things are today — with our wars, our conflicts, our discord, our greed — is far from ideal in terms of allowing people the freedom and opportunity to pursue the life they want to. Indeed, with the automation capabilities we already possess today it's likely that with a well-designed system only a small fraction of people will need to work to keep our societies running — especially at the larger scale.
One of the core principles of Infinite Love is that we are far better off working together than we are competing against each other. To some this may seem so obvious so as to be trite, and yet if it's so obvious why aren't we doing this today? Indeed, the entire capitalistic economic structure of many nations is founded on the idea that competition produces the best results in terms of innovation (i.e. the advancement of research and the development of new products and technology). And yet, despite such a system being the backbone of many nations for hundreds of years, our products are not that great. Think of any product and the number of different companies that make that product (for example, mobile phones, or toasters). Think of how many of those products are mediocre vs. how many are great (if any). Think of how many times the same ideas and technologies have been researched and developed by competing companies because no one wants to share their findings so as to not lose their competitive advantage. Think of how much innovation is stifled because patents prevent companies from using the existing good ideas of other companies, forcing them to use an often worse alternative approach. Now imagine if all those companies were working together instead of competing with each other. Instead of duplicating the same research, they pooled their resources and knowledge and built increasingly better products. Instead of preventing others from using their good ideas, they encouraged it. Regardless of whether you are amazed by the products we have today or not, you cannot reasonably suggest that the system of competition we have today is superior to a system in which everyone worked together.
Current world issues this relates to
- broadly: capitalism
- broadly: property ownership
- monetary policy
- patent & copyright law
- research paywalls
Freedom (liberty) — the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint — is often an ideal laid out in the core philosophies of governments, and it's easy to see why: the opposite is a very undesirable way to live. Very few people — if any — truly desire to be caged or controlled by others against their will; and yet, even progressive nations around the world struggle with the notion of freedom. The concept is perhaps more subtle than one might initially realize. First of all, freedom can only realistically extend as far as not impinging upon someone else's freedom. For example: you may wish to have the freedom to walk where you to. While generally no one would have any issue with that, most people would agree that such freedom does not extend to being able to walk into other people's homes without their permission. At the national level, many countries go a step further by making laws requiring certain behaviors (i.e. restricting your freedom) for our own protection. For example, in many places in the United States you are not free to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt; in fact, you can be fined or even jailed if you do not. The reasoning behind these laws is that wearing seatbelts can reduce the chances you are killed in the event of a car accident, and the lawmakers who established those laws believe it is the place of the government to decide for people what kind of risks they should take (especially in the context of many people lacking an awareness and understanding of the issues at hand to make informed decisions for themselves). It is not an unreasonable position to take, but it's messy: there are a great many things people are uninformed about which under such a principle invariably leads to many laws restricting people's freedom "for their own protection". Not only does this take a great deal of time to do, they are also usually far from perfectly designed and they will tend to "overreach" because they do not consider nuance. Continuing with the seatbelt example: what if you are driving in a place far from any other traffic at slow speeds where the risk of an accident is minimal? Surely then it must be okay to not have to wear a seatbelt. What's more, what if you are informed about the issue at hand, shouldn't you get a choice as to whether to wear a seatbelt or not? And what about in the future when most people are educated/informed enough? Do you then repeal the law and let people choose on their own? And we haven't even begun to address the other issue of special interest groups and corporations getting involved in lawmaking: for example, it is entirely legal for most adults to buy and smoke cigarettes in most parts of the world, and yet it is widely known that cigarettes are very bad for one's health. If lawmakers believe governments have the responsibility to make laws protecting people from their own bad (uninformed) decisions, why do they allow some clearly bad things and not others? This messiness is why at Infinite Love our prevailing belief is that freedom should be maximized without restriction (again, except where one's freedom impinges upon someone else's freedom), and instead of creating law after law preventing people from doing this and that, we believe it is much more effective to simply educate people on the matters at hand and let them make their own choice.
Current world issues this relates to
There is no better approach to life than one in which people are honest and transparent in everything they do. Arguably the most important reason to be honest is that only through honesty can you build an unbreakable trust with another person, and trust is the foundation of all healthy relationships. If a person lies, not only do they risk eroding any trust they've developed with someone if the lie is discovered, but they themselves are likely going to find it more difficult to fully trust others. Dishonesty only wastes peoples time and adds confusions to an already confusing world. But moreover, honesty is also healthier than lying, it promotes clarity in communication, it avoids the many conflicts that arise from dishonesty, and of course it's much easier since you don't have to make anything up or keep a record of the things you've lied about.
Some people believe there is a place for some lies. It's true, there are cases in which it may be appropriate to lie to protect someone's life, but beyond that it is almost never appropriate to lie, especially if it is for the purpose of "protecting" someone's feelings which invariably harms more than it helps. It benefits no one to tip-toe around sensitive subjects with a person as in doing so all you do is maintain that tendency to be easily hurt or offended for that person, which is not ideal for anyone, on top of the fact that the lying only brews further conflict down the road.
Consider a husband who has prepared a meal for his wife. She takes a bite and it turns out to be absolutely disgusting, but she doesn't want to hurt her husband's feelings, so she lies and says, "This is lovely, honey. Thank you so much making it." The problem with this is that:
- it's dishonest, so it erodes trust once discovered (and will beg the question as to what else she has been dishonest about)
- it does not help the husband improve his cooking
- the wife will have to keep lying every time the husband makes the same meal again (and presumably keep pretending to enjoy it while forcing the disgusting meal down every time)
It would have been much better to tell the truth — do not forget that it's possible to be honest and gentle at the same time. A better response would be something along the lines of, "I really appreciate you taking the time to make this for me, but I'm rather partial to this particular meal because <list reasons why you don't like it>. Maybe we could try <x y z alternative recipes> together later to see if we can make something we both enjoy?"