Left out below, is what does it mean to say, we win?
We win when evil loses. If evil is so pervasive, so powerful, so invincible, how can evil lose?
Evil loses when its reach is limited. Evil loses when its power is denied. Evil loses when it dies.
In the last few generations, at some point after WWII (as best as I can figure), the reach of evil was severely restricted. Good people, fighting for good, truly took some ground from evil.
Evil did as evil does, biding its time, until the good people wore down, as all people are bound to do; wore down so that they would not keep evil at bay, so that they would let evil take over once more, perhaps to even become evil themselves. But a funny thing happened: the good people, or at least enough of them, said no.
The good people learned that they could keep their ground, even gain ground, but simply telling the evil people no.
Of course, this would not do, not at all. So the evil people stopped biding, and started fighting. The good people fought back to an extent, which was a mistake. However, the good people just got done beating evil and holding them off, so they pretty rapidly figured out what they needed to do, which is to keep telling the evil people: "no".
The same sorts of tricks that evil people use to gain and hold power, also works to keep evil at bay, and this worked out for some time.
Eventually, the evil people who wielded the most power, died off. Other people rose up to take their place, some good and others evil, some of them not really either. The most evil of people, when they couldn't find power in the usual places, invented new places to grow and wield power. In many cases, good people inadvertently assisted in this. In all cases, the vast majority of regular people definitely assisted by remaining indifferent.
The cosmic whack-a-mole game of good vs. evil thus continues on. The forces of good, such as they are, are not necessarily the forces one would suspect. Likewise, the forces of evil almost certainly include persons whose identities, were they to be exposed, would shock you, or I, or the world.
The only certainty at this point is that the forces of good hold much ground (figuratively), and that the forces of evil who wield the most power have once again been circumvented in their ability to wield it. In the worst case, we wait for this batch of evil people to die off so the cosmic game resets. In the best case, we simultaneously defuse as much as possible of the last known good source of evil's power: the indifference of regular people.
Regular people aren't good or evil, really. We like to think we're good, but we're sinners, and as such we invariably play both sides.
If we pay attention, we can stay on the "good" side of the ledger, and not perpetuate terrible evils. People 100 years ago could do this, could stay "good people", by simple routine.
50 years ago? The number of people who couldn't properly understand good from evil was shockingly large, much larger than ever before. The amount of attention needed to reckon one's actions as good or evil, to any extent, was much more demanding while also seemingly less urgent - how could a middle-class life of relative leisure and good behavior be evil, for example? In lots of ways, as it turns out.
Today? Only the most diligent of people can perhaps properly claim to be more good than not. I can't be sure even I am more good than not. I'd like to think I'm not perpetuating evil, but (as always) evil pervades everything in our world, and technology supports both good and evil. Who among us uses today's technology with a real understanding of the costs (economically, or morally)? Who can get through daily life without using tools (of all sorts) whose functions are beyond our ability to properly comprehend?
In the face of insurmountable obstacles to diligence in all aspects of one's actions, how can we know if we are acting for good, or for evil? We carry on with our lives regardless. We are indifferent to what we can't comprehend, so long as our indifference does not prove itself dangerous.
How do we stop evil in this scenario? It must become dangerous to remain indifferent. People must be enabled to readily comprehend if their behavior is tilting towards evil, and how so, so that they can correct themselves. Most people, when given a true choice between good and evil, will recoil from evil.
Dangerous, in this sense, does not mean (only) physically dangerous. To the extent that indifference to evil starts to threaten people's livelihoods, for example, those people will no longer be able to afford indifference. Once they start to care, they may find that they are impotent in the face of the threat, and then become desperate.
The tools by which evil gains and wields power have been turned against evil itself. These will be the same tools that will come to threaten regular people. When people have no way to stop the threat, they will become desperate. These people must have a way to act to protect themselves, that is itself not evil, and which serves to minimize actual harm overall.
I believe "the plan" provides for this, nothing more or less.
Left out below, is what does it mean to say, we win?
We win when evil loses. If evil is so pervasive, so powerful, so invincible, how can evil lose?
Evil loses when its reach is limited. Evil loses when its power is denied. Evil loses when it dies.
In the last few generations, at some point after WWII (as best as I can figure), the reach of evil was severely restricted. Good people, fighting for good, truly took some ground from evil.
Evil did as evil does, biding its time, until the good people wore down, as all people are bound to do; wore down so that they would not keep evil at bay, so that they would let evil take over once more, perhaps to even become evil themselves. But a funny thing happened: the good people, or at least enough of them, said no.
The good people learned that they could keep their ground, even gain ground, but simply telling the evil people no.
Of course, this would not do, not at all. So the evil people stopped biding, and started fighting. The good people fought back to an extent, which was a mistake. However, the good people just got done beating evil and holding them off, so they pretty rapidly figured out what they needed to do, which is to keep telling the evil people: "no".
The same sorts of tricks that evil people use to gain and hold power, also works to keep evil at bay, and this worked out for some time.
Eventually, the evil people who wielded the most power, died off. Other people rose up to take their place, some good and others evil, some of them not really either. The most evil of people, when they couldn't find power in the usual places, invented new places to grow and wield power. In many cases, good people inadvertently assisted in this. In all cases, the vast majority of regular people definitely assisted by remaining indifferent.
The cosmic whack-a-mole game of good vs. evil thus continues on. The forces of good, such as they are, are not necessarily the forces one would suspect. Likewise, the forces of evil almost certainly include persons whose identities, were they to be exposed, would shock you, or I, or the world.
The only certainty at this point is that the forces of good hold much ground (figuratively), and that the forces of evil who wield the most power have once again been circumvented in their ability to wield it. In the worst case, we wait for this batch of evil people to die off so the cosmic game resets. In the best case, we simultaneously defuse as much as possible of the last known good source of evil's power: the indifference of regular people.
Regular people aren't good or evil, really. We like to think we're good, but we're sinners, and as such we invariably play both sides.
If we pay attention, we can stay on the "good" side of the ledger, and not perpetuate terrible evils. People 100 years ago could do this, could stay "good people", by simple routine.
50 years ago? The number of people who couldn't properly understand good from evil was shockingly large, much larger than ever before. The amount of attention needed to reckon one's actions as good or evil, to any extent, was much more demanding while also seemingly less urgent - how could a middle-class life of relative leisure and good behavior be evil, for example? In lots of ways, as it turns out.
Today? Only the most diligent of people can perhaps properly claim to be more good than not. I can't be sure even I am more good than not. I'd like to think I'm not perpetuating evil, but (as always) evil pervades everything in our world, and technology supports both good and evil. Who among us uses today's technology with a real understanding of the costs (economically, or morally)? Who can get through daily life without using tools (of all sorts) whose functions are beyond our ability to properly comprehend?
In the face of insurmountable obstacles to diligence in all aspects of one's actions, how can we know if we are acting for good, or for evil? We carry on with our lives regardless. We are indifferent to what we can't comprehend, so long as our indifference does not prove itself dangerous.
How do we stop evil in this scenario? It must become dangerous to remain indifferent. People must be enabled to readily comprehend if their behavior is tilting towards evil, and how so, so that they can correct themselves. Most people, when given a true choice between good and evil, will recoil from evil.
Dangerous, in this sense, does not mean (only) physically dangerous. To the extent that indifference to evil starts to threaten people's livelihoods, for example, those people will no longer be able to afford indifference. Once they start to care, they may find that they are impotent in the face of the threat, and then become desperate.
The tools by which evil gains and wields power have been turned against evil itself. These will be the same tools that will come to threaten regular people. When people have no way to stop the threat, they will become desperate. These people must have a way to act to protect themselves, that is itself not evil, and which serves to minimize actual harm overall.
I believe "the plan" provides for this, nothing more or less.