DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

I’ve already thought about it in one second. I firmly believe that you are talking out of your bottom.

So do you believe morality is not influenced by genetics at all.

Mice are as moral as humans, preying mantis are as moral as mice correct?

Is anentropy local or non-local? In other words, is personal good the same as universal good?

Ignorant again.
You ignored what I wrote earlier;

Note I mentioned the above are possibilities that humanity can look into in the future.
Whatever steps humanity take and implement in the future [say next 100 years] must be absolutely fool proof.

I have to say the above view [straw man] and inventing definitions on behalf of others is very stupid.

The bad thing is that the only way to achieve a perfect balance, one must consider literally ALL things. The good thing is that there is room for mistakes and forgivenesses. So the local must be balanced with the regional under an understanding of how to compensate for misalignment without throwing the balance even further off. That is the purpose of the SAM Coop.

That seems to be your only defense left. You can’t even define the words you are using, so you (in almost every post) have to insult whoever is disagreeing with you.

Can’t be an insult if it is a demonstrated and justified fact.

Too bad your brain can only manage one second of thought or you might learn new perspectives and ideas rather than cling to old or warped ideas.

Seems like you are the one clinging to old warped ideas. You can’t even get an insult right, girl, I never said my brain can only handle 1 second of thought…you can’t even make insults that are logically coherent.

Good: the flow of energy down the path of equal resistance
Bad: the flow of energy down the path of less resistance (under-performance) or more resistance (over-performance)

I don’t think that life is an effort to maintain some sort of equilibrium. I think that life is energy flow. Energy flow is an expansive process that seeks the path of near-equal resistance. Balancing, in this sense, merely refers to choosing the right path. Bad is defined as energy flow down the path of less resistance (under-performance, waste of potential) or down the path of more resistance (over-performance.)

I didn’t not say it could only handle 1 second. Try slowing down and actually comprehend what you read.

I say the same to you.

All you are doing is twisting words and putting your own delusional meanings into it.

If I worship good porn, it doesn’t mean I worship bad porn.

Just guessing but, you really did not study the definitions did you.

That's progress for you!.jpg

One Liner,

Ask this little guy what he thinks of it.
Does progress ALSO come with solutions?

cbc.ca/news/technology/polar … -1.3542836

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

Yea,

Life is dynamic equilibrium, e.g.

Good and Evil in the case of the OP should be viewed within the Moral/Ethics perspective [btw no theological considerations.].
What is absolutely good and evil together with their variations should be defined and clearly stated based on empirical evidences and philosophical justifications. For example it is not difficult to agree that genocides, mass rapes, and the likes are obviously evil as defined. Those who commit such acts will believe their evil acts are good, but such arguments can be easily refuted.

Once we have established what is supposedly to be absolutely good or evil from the Moral perspective [Theory] we can implement various Ethics [applied] strategies to manage what is to be good and avoid evil. Such a process will be quite complicated but very feasible on a progressive and continuous improvement approach.

There is a difference between growth and balance. Growth is increase in size, balance is maintenance of size. Thus, a self-directed being that aims for growth will strive to increase its size over time, whereas a self-directed being that aims for equilibrium is not interested in growth as much as it is interested in preserving its size.

If we understand being as quantity of energy, then self-directed growth would be choosing the path of greatest gain/loss ratio whereas self-maintained equilibrium would be choosing the path of gain/loss ratio that is nearest to one.

In the former case, beings desire to gain as much energy as possible. In the latter case, beings desire to exchange as little energy as possible.

Life can be either of the two. Nonetheless, I consider growth to be superior to balancing, thus, life proper.

The Tao symbol represent growth [change] and balance in complementarity.
Point is whatever the change [growth or otherwise], it must always leveraged strongly in complementarity with balance in terms of dynamic equilibrium as life of optimal well-being should be.
This is a central principle in most of the Eastern spirituality and religions.