Yes.

I don’t know. Let’s test it really quick, shall we?

Say a few nice things about conservatives.

What good?

It doesn’t happen on its own. People have to make it so. However, what some people view as good results in what others view as bad.

Some might see universal health care as good, where others see profits as good. These are in opposition.

Unfortunately, the people who see profits as good tend to have more disposable resources and more effective propaganda than people who see universal health care as good.

I would hope so but I’m cynical so I think no.

I think humans (like all animals) are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. Animals, including us, are programmed to procreate and consume and (for some species) construct things. It’s all about survival and thriving. All animals all have a general “I got mine, fuck you” mindset.

We despise cancer for its brainless infinite growth programming…when our operational model is hardly different.

In short, I think we’re all a bunch of selfish idiots competing against each other and other life forms. There is no greater purpose or benevolent spirit watching, much less cheering us on. Where there is life, it’s just reproducing and eating and dying and repeating that cycle for as long as the local environment allows.

So no, I don’t think the good in humankind will prevail. There’s evidence all around that goodness is losing the battle to greed and other self-destructive tendencies. Things which are hard-wired in the human animal. Don’t look up!

Is that an excuse to not even try? No, I don’t think so. I think we are still morally and ethically obligated to always strive to do better and fight against that brainless animal programming. Even if goodness ultimately fails, it can greatly reduce suffering along the way. And perhaps keep the concept of a new “enlightenment” alive long enough that we do eventually figure out a way to break out of that animal programming and build some kind of egalitarian utopia. Because there is also evidence all around us of people performing selfless acts of self-sacrifice to help others.

I think the chances are very, very slim of that utopia ever happening. Because quite frankly, evil is like a force of nature and goodness is like a guy with a shovel and a plan. But I do think utopia is theoretically possible.

In short, I think it goodness will not prevail, but I would love to be dead wrong about this. I hope goodness wins.

Mostly no.

We’re going after the rails on a crazy train.

If it could, it would have by now.

I do. But I think we all have to make an effort. Which sucks but we just got to get on with it. Some stuff about our lives is good because others sacrificed for it in the past and some things are bad because we haven’t yet fought for it properly. Good vs Evil etc. Life is uncomfortable buddy, because it is currently imperfect and probably always will be. You have to stay in the fight though, otherwise it will definitely be lost.

Maybe, but I think it is possible that at some point it could become permanently too late for that. If your every move is tracked, if your thoughts and actions are all anticipated and directed, if automated systems can silence or kill anyone, we can lose all possible agency. If the entities retaining agency find a way to be sustainable and stable, things can stay that way indefinitely. People often seem to think that we’ll always get another chance, and given enough time things may change, but I think it is very likely that we will lose, with finality.

I want to believe. I don’t know what to expect but I am try and hopes other too. I believe we all want to be happy , I hope we all figure out. Either way we die at the end.

I don’t mean to say this to sound like a pessimist (in fact, humans have been shown to be wonderful on an individual level), but I have low faith/regards to “humankind” as an entirety having their appreciable side endure. I define this similar to what Aristotle would say is the tripartite soul, where balance of thought is prioritized and people see passions for what they are, but in my experience, this couldn’t be further from how most people act. I’ve seen families and even cultures befallen because those contributing to their demise are so accustomed to each other and their own pre-existing customs that “due process” becomes a memory, perhaps a beforethought to a certain question. Even as one might remind us how crude and imperfect the human being is as a construct, the same people often choose to wear it, demonstrating that “human nature”, which is a term we use to excuse a myriad of things, is worse than any other form of neurodivergence I have come across, which in a poetic sense may be why my closest associates are outside the neurotypical realm. In such a dog eats dog world, I’d be regretfully glad to be eaten.

It has. Often. More often than not, in fact. But not always. There have been periods of greater suffering and lost progress.

The trend of good’s prevalence is a matter of history. It’s been called the zeitgeist (Hegel) which evolves over time, a trajectory we can evaluate in hindsight.

In particular, knowledge, the value of life, our collective moral understanding and enumeration of human rights all trend upward over time.

But if by “prevail” we mean a kind of universal perfection, where all forms of suffering are eradicated and only joy and pleasure remain, then no, good cannot prevail. If it did, good would cease to exist, denied its fundamental nature as an evolving concept.

Sadly, no. I think most people are apathetic about anything that does not immediately and directly impact themselves. Evil doesn’t need much more than that to thrive. Meanwhile, good requires active participation, selflessness, and continual vigilance to thrive.

Judging by the number of people who cannot literally lift a finger to make roads a safer place through the use of turn signals, I don’t hold much hope for humankind, as a whole, to put in the continual effort to quash “evil”.

Money is power and power corrupts. We ether have to get rid of the wealthy or make their wealth mean less.

In the US, publicly funded elections would be a decent first step.