You can only have one, as one cancels out the other.

Make your choice.

Infinite growth, or perpetual safety.

Your choice in this reflects your own psychology.

@Aldo6 these are monkeys paw questions. Each at what cost, you don't define the cost, the question is a trap.

@Aldo6 Infinate growth = Akira
Infinate safety = Pleasantville

@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club notice how I said they cancel out each other.

Safety cancels out growth because it brings everyone inside. Growth cancels out safety because it forces people out of their comfort zone.

People who want to have a "happy medium" are people who believe that everything can be simply calculated/predicted, which itself is an admission of weakness because they do not factor in the unknown/infinite.

@Aldo6 notice that I said you didn't define the cost, what is the cost of this safety, is it a willing cost, or is it cost extracted against one's will? What is the cost for this growth? The answer to both may be pain, or even worse, betrayal of allies. IF those may be the cost would either be worth it?

@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club it's a willing cost, obv. Both are willed, not coerced. But perpetual safety is akin to a person agreeing to their own slavery. It is a person choosing to remain weak and abrogate any attempt to grow (i.e. to get stronger). In perpetual safety, there is no motivation to grow stronger.

@Aldo6 okay so it's a willing cost, and by the way how can someone be safe if they can't grow and how can someone grow if they're not safe? A fish in the ocean is not safe, but if it grows to adulthood it must have had "enough" safety, and so it must have had some degree of safety to have some degree of growth, if its degree of safety reaches zero that means it is in another fish's stomach.

@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club it's entirely possible to grow if one isn't safe, in fact, it's a requirement. It is very hard (or impossible) to grow if one is prevented from experiencing pain or struggle. The pain/struggle is the motivation to grow!

No, the fish (singular) didn't grow because of "safety", it grew to that size because of its own will 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 the lack of safety.

Thinking that safety comes before growth is a trap. Growth exists on its own.

@Aldo6 You ignored my detail completely about degrees of safety, do you not agree that if a fishes degree of safety reaches zero it is therefore incapable of sustaining life, and is by definition dead, after which point it's safety becomes an irrelevant question as there is no longer a fish to be safe or unsafe at all.

@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club no, because what even is "safety" in the context of your fish analogy?

A large open ocean?

Other weaker, smaller fish being around to be eaten instead?

A shark being full and choosing to ignore the fish?

Your last point is the whole argument I'm making. If one survives the struggle of life, then one becomes so strong that "safety" becomes irrelevant.

@Aldo6 Their strength didn't make the safety irrelevant, it became their safety. In the context of the fish, being in water that's not too hot and not too cold equals safety, having food that it has access to and is suitable for it equals safety, etc.

@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club the strength does not become the safety. They are not pursuing strength as if this will make them safe. They are pursuing strength/growth because that is the meaning of life. The strength allows them to transcend safety. There is a clear difference. A shark only attacks a whale when the whale is dead or a baby.

My conditions can also be considered aspect of "safety" as well, no?

In that sense, just life itself is safety, because if they are alive they are not dead. This is reductionist to the point of nil. If life itself is safety, and life is struggle, then struggle is safety etc...

@Aldo6 If struggle is strength and strength makes safety irrelevant, one is neither safe nor unsafe, that is even more reductionist, it makes the eradicates the concept of safety, or pretends to, because if people really operated this way they would exercise every intrusive thought regardless of safety like jamming their hand into a table saw. Some people do this, and they are called insane, it is viewed as a malfunction if no reason can be atteibuted to the act other than impulse. You seek to erode the concept of safety, you argue against it's utility, this is senseless. Everything has utility. Empty space even has utility. If someone can't see this it doesn't nullify the utility, it only indicates their ignorance.