Jenome cannot be beaten in this kind of environment. From a great distance, a "good" civilization can defeat a "bad" one, or a growing one can defeat a decaying one, but on Terra we do not face this kind of situation. Perhaps millennia ago, when our transport was limited, and it might conceivably take centuries of invention for civilizations to come into contact--in our limited historical perspective, Jenome came about then, and everything since has been the sorrows of loss.
How can we throw back the decay? Solve what seems to be the great existential problem of the age? Win?
We cannot. Let's discuss how, from an individual and collective perspective. Throughout, we will use "good" and similar terms in reference to behaviors and/or individuals which attempt to expand the complexity of light-channeling mechanisms, and "evil" and similar terms in reference to those which attempt to prevent such complexity, reduce it, stabilize it with the goal of preventing or reversing natural expansion, et cetera.
The weakness of humanity. A decent person, upon being acquainted with another person, will recognize the humanity in the other person. Even if a stupid person, a violent person, a dishonest person, et cetera, the person is rightly perceived as different than a stone; if not for his inherent value as a human, then for the greater complexity over the rock which the human represents.
Imagine, then, an environmental catastrophe where split-seconds are at issue. The person who sees the other person as a rock is unfettered by any thoughts of cooperation, kinship, or mercy. In the escape from a rockslide, the man willing to lie, exploit others' sense of kinship, climb over the backs of others, and kick them away when they reach for help after a boost, is more likely to survive. Ergo any willingness to see others as more or less complex than they are is hurtful to chances of success in a material world.
Consider philosophers' reminders of the terrible costs of misplaced compassion upon the future of one's people. If only soft targets had been pre-emptively (or ever) targeted; if only subversives had been prevented from leaving, let alone encouraged to join other enemies or subsidized for years at terrible cost; if only nastier methods had been used, more akin to what history was planning to accuse anyway. The price of having a soul is failing and being not remembered, or perhaps being remembered inaccurately. It is not conducive to material success, for a nanosecond's question about degrees of purity in the instant cleanse is failure when you are competing against a true believer who would not suffer such hesitation. He can believe his own lies; you cannot believe yours and will always be troubled by them even if they succeed (a niggling doubt which exists in utter defiance of your creation via solely-material-focused evolution). Even while crafting what will later "deceive" him into thinking he is a victimized hero, he will be un-troubled by any conflation of material truth with transmaterial truth. What he believes will be true. Eventually accepted by all, verified by none, and everyone knows there are a few crazies out there who will believe anything so long as it's not true. If you have any natural repugnance toward such lies, you are not meant to be here successful, for material truth is the successful lie.
(We suffer a great dissonance, here, when we confuse material truth with transmaterial truth, for time and matter can be arranged in any fashion which will later prove, unquestionably, that something did or did not happen, should or should not be investigated or contemplated, et cetera. It is almost, if not quite literally, unthinkable to move divergently from such axioms; discovering the details of their faces is materially impossible, so a better task here is to accept necessary inaccuracies rather than spend however many lifetimes identifying fragments of any given one or handful of them.)
The weakness of groups. This same principle extends to groups. Materially, the group which is willing to exterminate all evidence of a competing group, make it taboo for generations, and let the competing group effectively vanish, will always prove more effective at material survival than the group which behaves otherwise. We delude ourselves otherwise only because of the relatively newfound capability of erase-groups to reach, through charity, non-erase-groups. The material prizes produced by those willing to acknowledge, remember, or even learn from their former enemies, are pleasant things, but when in proximity to each other, the willingness of one side to destroy the treasures of another, set against the hesitation of the other side to do the same in return, cripples the weaker group's material success.
Believing in something better. Any belief in something better than material competition is similarly cursed by the material world, for it shrinks the total sum of possible actions available to an individual or group. An individual willing to rape 100 victims enjoys vastly more material success than an individual who rescues and shelters one potential victim, raises it to adulthood, reproduces ten healthy offspring with it, and teaches said offspring to act similarly. Mathematically, even randomizing victim-choices, all of the decent people will eventually become not so, through being the raped offspring of non-rapists, the exterminated weaklings of the martial planet, or the exponentially outnumbered speck in the verse.
The world quickly becomes a rapist's kingdom of necessity. Similarly, those who cultivate ever fall to those who pillage. If it weren't for the soldiers, we would all be soldiers. Any peoples who tried to differentiate themselves from this material maxim would be pillaged, and their accumulated wealth, in material or material techniques, fall to those who found themselves on theft.
We recognize these principles in some form, because our entertainment since civilizations have blended has been based around dealing with individuals and/or groups who do not conform. If we establish behavioral norms, but someone doesn't comply, we recognize them as a material danger. Some of us make the material mistake, though, of recognizing a material benefit as a material danger due to conjectured concepts of sole, imaginary kinship, or undiscoverable transmaterial value. E.g., we assume that killing a person, stealing their riches, and instantly disposing of the body would be a material setback to the murdering self-enricher. If individuals of a group do not comply with such norms, but we are hampered by norms regarding perceptions of groups versus individuals, we are unable to accurately assess or respond to the problem. Any form of honesty, forthrightness, sense of justice, et cetera, becomes toxic in the same way that it is among individuals facing other individuals who do not follow the same moral code: the skull-smasher takes the farmer's produce, invents a rationale for slavery, and the farmer either becomes a slave-farmer or becomes dead and willfully forgotten.
The slave-farmer who deludes himself into believing he has materially prospered by bettering his comparatively lazy master is quite mistaken, as is he who fails to become rich because he does not--when presented with the hypothetical opportunity to remove adversaries and achieve wealth and reproduction without discovery--take that opportunity because of materially inappropriate notions of "justice," "honor," or some other materially illusory phantasm who influences behavior while returning nothing material.
(Our history is a fantasy where we try not to think about the once-supermajority of decent peoples who are not only no more, but who are materially forgotten. In these last few thousand years of decomposition, we think of life more as a struggle because of what it took to get here. "Oh, it had to be done; there was no other way." What ugly lies to pass for pretty ones! As Terra closes on the end of its cycle of utility, this pattern will grow more pronounced.)
What proves interesting at this stage of lightform development is any illusion that transcendent material norms can or should adjust the material process. A moral deity does not, of course, come to punish the man who escapes the landslide by lying about being lame and then refusing to help the others over the ridge once he has himself been hoisted. But should a moral deity do so? We take the absence of such assistance, in any form, as proof that there either is no moral deity, or that the moral deity is reserving his judgment for later, which results in deserved terrible assessments of such hypothetical moral deity. The unblinking eye of said moral deity has even proven a boon to the wicked, for promises to pay tenfold in a hundred years are unverifiable at best. Ergo we struggle with the quandary--but what we fail to see is the material struggle is necessarily this way, and it would be even more selfish were it governed by guidelines which drew their reasoning from greater future material rewards. I.e., if I don't climb others' backs to escape the landslide because Moral Deity will reward me with chocolate and/or gold and/or orgasms later, I am more material than those who honestly perform the climb for survival. Such a moral deity is also become an immoral deity, but that is beside the point; the point for the moment is the impossibility of beating material evil in a material setting, ever.
(We rightly view it as ridiculous that everyone might play nicely, because this kind of existence will always have mean-players, without whom the lessons of materialism cannot be learned. We thank Jenome for its utter harshness, its petty selfishness, because without that purity, we cannot truly understand the material world. We think we are plagued by the logical extremes of these phases of existence. Again, this one reminds you to not give up and to believe in a transmaterial "nice" materialism if you will; everyone finds their path, and by all means play to win. Me telling you that you can't win should be immaterial for you, yuk yuk.)
Better farming cannot be accomplished alongside better soldiering when there is no separation, for the toddlers' brigades will ever favor the skull-smashers over the seed-strokers. Even half a tenth of a percentile devoted to seed-stroking produces an aggregate loss in skull-smashing capability, ergo the 100% fighters always kill the ~%99.999 fighters, and the only agriculture that can remain after full contact is the kind based on random chance or profitable lies. The idealist who, therefore, argues that we can beat the evil by retaining our goodness and being vindicated in the end is simply anti-mathematical; on Terra, we are beyond any point of separation, and are constantly monitored, such that any innovations are discovered and controlled before they may be used to win.
It's rather a case of having the same bite twice, or as they say here, having your cake and eating it too, when Terrans argue that materialism can be won through non-materialist behavior. Our great acknowledged philosophers grapple with this unsolvable "riddle" of why the world rewards badness. In part this is because the material victory is desired, but in part because the material victory is recognized as existentially insufficient by those who will move on. As a result, it is crippling to confront materialism from a transmaterial perspective, where one imagines that materials as we now know them can or will be won by behaving in the opposite fashion of a material victory. This is a common trope throughout the recent ages; if only we can forgive harder, turn more cheeks, et cetera, we will be vindicated in some form of the here and now (even the "there and then" is conceptualized as a here and now, albeit a better one).
Whether or not this seeming conundrum be resolved eventually in favor of the good is somewhat irrelevant compared to the decision between materialism and non; like being able to eliminate an earlier level of education now that one is more advanced, the implication that tests will no longer be required negates the value of having gone though the test, ergo negates the individual's achievement (prior test-passers) as well as forestalling it to all others (who would be allowed to study for, take, and be happy at passing or motivated by failing, the test too, if not for well-wishers who don't want those after them to develop). Why, say, would a moral god, or a developing system, require such a test were it not toward some purpose? Are souls to be of finite number? If one can win materialism non-materially, what does that act say about the worthlessness of all prior evolutions? We see, then, that the materialism versus beyond divide is more of a plausible deciding point than a test. With it apparent to all how success may be obtained--at the expense of others, say--we have the choice to embrace or reject the material; to become agents of the material world, or to believe, despite all promises to the contrary, that there is more. It's a persistent, contrafactual doubt for those who suffer it. If you do, challenge yourself to explain the competitive material utility of an evolved question that the transmaterial may exist. Not a hypothetical purpose for it, like an extra arm, but something that would have, under material-focused evolution, provided a true and consistent benefit.
(There is none; among materialism's objective material failures is its inability to create itself, and its concomitant ability to become something more than the material. We see echoes of this jealous lack in material's constant arguments that it did, in fact, create itself, and does, in fact, have built-in a higher but unseeable form of itself [strings and dimensionolgy as modern versions of primordial waters and paradises]. For those who have fallen for the lure that air-lungs developed randomly while ammonia lungs did not, do try to contemplate also the benefits of moral qualms about eliminating an unknown newborn animal, versus the evolved trait to cook [or merely ignore] such a sight. Best Possible World theory imagines a benefit that, among animals not so husbanded, returned compassion is a massive time-sink at best, and more likely an invitation to co-evolved diseases, bitten hands, and resource-waste. Our imaginary histories always make random evolution a difficult pill to swallow. The Nu Euro remains, as ever, fond of the idea that anti-material behavior has material benefits. "Sociology" indeed.)
Any hesitation in killing an “innocent” witness; a percentile’s second slowdown in removing a competitor; a late-life pang of worry that some undiscoverable action shall cause wrong: mortal peril to the materially successful. Forgiveness without binding promises; admitting that the dead had potentially rational reasons for disliking you; any form of affection for honesty or memory which favors objective (transmaterial) truth over immediate and/or potentially exponential material gain is a materially evolutionarily flaw, harshly resisted ("punished") by the material world. Our historical failure to achieve confessions of evils is not primarily due to a grand conspiracy as to the evolved materialism of its winners, who must act in such a way because they do not believe an alternative does nor can exist. Ergo this one’s consistent lack of concern about telegraphing the ways in which the “mass mind” here might be overcome; victory is never a thing of here, and something which is not material does not exist to the materialist, ergo cannot be a threat.
Any form of resistance to material masters is perceived by them as a hateworthy threat, for materialism succeeds by being comprehensively material, ergo decaying processes, which always win. The lack of a threat to which this one refers is the threat to transmaterial, e.g., the idea that the comparative third dimension may be harmed by anything sketched in two dimensions. We do not, cannot, risk paradise by occasionally (materially) manifesting a hope in it.
The triumph of the material is, then, anyone’s triumph, for any material triumph is the material triumph, with the rewarded actor merely a vessel for a greater worldview. All will be gone eventually, whether in a hundred years, five trillion years, et cetera, for in material there is no permanence; indeed, there is almost a visceral hatred of the idea that something could be more profound or lasting than the material.
Evil loves and fears deities only so much as they threaten material success, ergo ascetics are not the threat that hypocritical megachurches might theoretically be. As westernized philosophies go, then, this is why we see such assiduous interest in promoting “quiet acceptance” religions versus “prove your worth” ones, ergo the replacement of paganism via tiered Yahweh-worship. In any discussion of transmaterialism, we witness the long history of delusions regarding its potential existence, and its eerie assistance by materialists wishing to have fewer people against whom to compete.
To be materially effective, we must not have "souls," for any consideration of the non material hamstrings the material. We can imagine a web of interconnected rewards whereby this principle is violated, but such is as much a transmaterial fantasy as a paradise of material rewards provisioned out to those who shun them in the material. It is always a material loss to not be material, and part of being here is accepting that. No permitted trace remains of societies which permitted transmaterial philosophies to reproduce. In modernity, the extremely stupid may imagine a separation from the material, an illusory rejection of the means by which material demands were overcome, but at a longer time scale, the flaw can be seen. The wealthy heir, therefore, who gives away great-great-grandfather's colonial fortune in the name of good, must be a material failure, and his deception that his means of survival--perhaps by selling pieces of evil for bread and mansions--is endurable only inasmuch as the world concedes the true source of the wealth, e.g., as long as colonial treasure remains. The homeless, too, may eventually realize that their ability to accept largesse springs from the same society which crushes children's bones to provide justification for managers to buy themselves imaginary freedom via largesse; the only survival here is some concession to materialism, ergo none are innocent except perhaps the long- or quickly-dead.
The ascetic, ironically, is a failed materialist more than a proto-transmaterialist. In the defining of the self by rejection of the material, we see a philosophy where material is so important that escaping it must mean defining one’s existence here in opposition to the material, which actually embraces it. We can probably see this most easily in the ascetic-related religions of Nu Euro peoples, who have proven how strong is their attachment to their material failure that they define existential opposition to matter by inverted fascination with it--while still eating, but this is only part of the humor, for even the successfully suicidal are often conceding the current mastery of materialism over their souls.
If you have a taste for the transmaterial, there is and can be no victory in materialism, because it spawns its own destruction as it goes. Imagine, say, a planet where all have died except parasites. Their only course is to then continue consuming, and the only remaining prey is they themselves. In the competition to be the most material, sustainable materialism of a slave-planet is a nice fantasy, but can last little more than a few thousand years, for materialism defines itself by comparative worth, and pleasurable excesses which can only be measured by the lacks of others eventually foster classification, which mandate intra-class competition, which means parasites will end up eating each other, no matter how initially stable their societies become. To be sure, no one of any transmaterial philosophy enjoys the slave’s life. Making the decision of what to pursue is part of what you do here. Embrace the material, or not. Material victory is loss, because--for this one, at least--a septillon years of pleasure is still finite, therefore essentially worthless, paled by eternity, shrunk to comparative nothingness, and even within that hell, necessarily repetitive to the point of keenest torture. No problem for materialists, for whom there is no truth, therefore repetitive illusions perpetually soothe. It is the transmaterial phantasms of eternal growth which can frighten to the point of brilliance causing material aversion, and in time, each one will decide which it prefers. There, and only there, is where truth and honor begin to have their place, not as hobbles but as something different; their lingering sense revealed purposeful rather than components of badly-rationalized material utilitarianism. Being able to understand that is not faith, nor is it reason, for it cannot be seen through reason alone. As ever, glimpses of such thoughts remain indecipherable to those who cannot see them, for they cannot fathom eternity nor any transmaterial forms. Whether or not you can, there is no particular reason to be offended in any case, for it remains scientific and objectifiable that things are, then, worthless, for material contrasts necessary build existences of no inherent value.
In modern parlance, how childish, how broken it is to imagine that the material struggle can be not only won, but be fought in superior fashion, burdened of things not of this world! In a way, this one supposes that the difficult recognition of the nature of this ever-sinking pit is a necessary step for ever departing it.