Every worldview is like a tree in a forest. Some worldviews are so similar that two or more trees appear as a single tree in the forest. Other worldviews have intertwined roots and branches because of how close they are in proximity, and other trees are so far apart that they are nowhere near any other trees, nor do they connect.
This forest of worldviews in the entire human understanding of what is real, what is likely real, what may be real, what is unlikely to be real, and what isn't real.
Each tree or worldview in the forest of human understanding can also be thought of as an information tree, and much like an artificial Christmas tree, more branches can be added, or taken away, where each branch added or taken away is information that fits well on that tree or not, and where each new ornament added every year to the tree is new information being added to the tree.
Billionaires, politicians, religious leaders, teachers, and/or other groups of people trying to feed us information, would like for us to add their information or ornament to our information tree or our worldview.
The sum of our information tree is the sum of information we have accepted or rejected, and this creates our filter for all future information, in a manner we explored in our change, value, behavior, and performance article.
When everyone has the same information, it doesn't always result in the same information tree, worldview, nor filter, because experience with all of the same affects the same.
The less the diversity in worldviews might be argued as the key to world peace, but due to the fluid nature of what is good and bad and true and false, known as moral relativism, there is always a conflicting view that arises, as we specified in our moral relativism article, and other articles.
Accordingly, it would be hard -- due to the conflict inherent in ethics, morals, and judgement resulting from moral relativism -- to be able to create a central information tree that everyone could agree upon as we tried in our change, value, behavior, and performance article -- but it is possible for us all to learn about and respect all of the different trees in the forest, and we appreciate that even we stray from these recommendations as hypocrites would, we then self-correct, promote the views of others we disagree with, and remind ourselves and others that the perspective of the others we seek to better, to better ourselves, have counter-perspectives, which we either don't agree with and/or fail to understand.
Returning to Nietzsche's moral relativism, there are those animals who think that it is both good and true that they should be allowed to exploit, harm, and kill other animals, like other savages in the jungle do, and they also think that anyone trying to stop them from exploiting, harming, and/or killing others is evil and that this is true.
We suspect these people have never been and/or felt loved and/or respected enough to be able to love and/or respect themselves and/or others.
Our articles on scarcity propose that (love and respect) resource scarcity is what makes a hypothalamus unhappy.
As the same time, there are those animals who think that it is both good and true that everyone should be allowed to be free from exploitation, harm, and death caused by other animals, unlike savages in the jungle do, and who also think that anyone trying to exploit, harm, and/or kill them are evil and that this is true.
We suspect these people have been and/or felt loved and/or respected enough to be able to love and/or respect themselves and/or others, and further propose to add this branch to your tree.
Our articles on scarcity propose that (love and respect) resource abundance (and not scarcity) is what makes a hypothalamus happy.
We believe democracy is what allows the most others to feel respected and loved, relative to tyranny, dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, and empires, and primate research supports this belief, where when the most vicious, deceptive, and/or toxic alpha animal was removed from the group, the group worked together and lived in better harmony.
Accordingly, the solution to maximizing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seems to be to remove the most vicious, deceptive, and/or toxic alpha animals from the group, but in a manner where they too could maximize their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness, if possible.
Humanity and our ability to sense the world and understand the same, even if in a limited manner, is a gift, and we believe that gift should not be spoiled by a small group of people in order to serve the networked mental illness of this just this small group of people, so that the maximum number of people may also enjoy this miraculous and infrequent gift of sentient life, towards the maximum number of people pursuing life, liberty, and happiness.
We support leaders who want to maximize the number of people leading happier, fuller, healthier, and richer lives. We propose that everyone add this branch to their tree.
Many of our other articles don't just focus on global problems but on global solutions. Here, we propose that each of us learn how to construct an information tree that is flexible to ideas or information that we might otherwise believe shouldn't be on our tree.
So what might the perfect information tree, filter, or worldview look like?
Similar to Unitarian Universalists, or the forest of worldviews, a perfect information tree would accept all information, even if not understanding all of the information. No information would be rejected, censored, nor burned, but rather gathered, and over time, would naturally built out different branches of knowledge for a common tree.
Cults of personality and imperial cults often need to deny their membership access to certain "forbidden" information, in order to control a specific and usually a self-serving narrative.
Should some information be forbidden?
There are probably healthy and reasonable argument for the same, but this begs the question, who should be the judge for what knowledge should or shouldn't be accessed by others?
Should a group of men decide what's right for women?
Should a group of white people decide what is right for non-white people?
Should the rich decide what's right for the poor?
Should the old decide what's right for the young?
Should people of one nationality decide what's right for people of another nationality?
Should people of one religion decide what faith others -- who don't share that religion -- should have?
Should people without faith decide how people of faith should worship?
Should people of faith decide how people who have no faith should lead their lives?
Should we engineer cities based on values, belief, and/or faiths and allow others to freely move and explore different cities they would most like to live in, or is the same segregation, and what has history taught us about the same? So many hot messes to fix, lots of resistance to fixing these hot messes, and so little time.
PHOTO ATTRIBUTES
https://unsplash.com/@lucabravo