Nathan said:
But what if the child wanted to remain in front of the car? Would you be violating the child's free will by rescuing them?
Perhaps STO would be informing the child of the dangers of the approaching car and offering the opportunity to help it out of harm's way rather than forcing. Sure, you wouldn't get that much time if this were a literal situation and the car was only seconds away from hitting the child, but this is a crude analogy.
Plus, the world is not a child, you are not responsible for the world, nor is the world helplessly thrown into something it cannot handle if it chose to. It chooses not to be responsible for itself and to give away its free will and to stay ignorant, so I think that's different than a child.
Not that you don't care about humanity, but it's just not a child - a parent has responsibility for his children who truly are helpless in a lot of respects and would die if abandoned. But at some point if a child simply refuses to grow up, when does a parent say "enough" and let the child (who is no longer a child) face the harsh and often painful reality which forces him to either take responsibility for his existence or perish? You are going to die, and when you do, one way or another, the child will be hit with reality - it's just a matter of time. But when you're alive, you can perhaps do so more gradually and not risk his death, but at the same time cut off support to such a degree that it does hurt, so a catalyst does exist. But you don't want to cut off support that does not need to be cut off either. You don't want to "lead by the hand" and to do what is his responsibility and what would only benefit him to do and would hurt him if you did it for him, but you don't want to leave him stranded doing what is not necessary and potentially impossible to do alone. The C's ARE helping us, but there is a line they won't cross where helping becomes hurting.
Another thing to consider here is that none of us can escape this matrix on our own, it is a group effort and we must help each other to have any hope of getting out. Would I just stand there and watch somebody get run over by a car because it's "their lessons" and I must not interfere? In most cases, not if I can help it, but the devil really is in the details. The C's say "all is lessons". But they also say that the same lesson can be learned in different ways. So you cannot prevent someone from learning a lesson, at worst you postpone the lesson. So the big question would be, why would you do such a thing? Is it to try to help them learn it a different way? Perhaps, but are there circumstances where this is simply not a good idea or just wishful thinking on your part? Probably.
If one was to have the power to make the planet dodge a "space bullet", it would not necessarily mean depriving the planet of its lessons, it could mean creating the possibility of learning those lessons without a mass annihilation by comets. However, what if the planet just isn't going to learn this without such a painful catalyst, what if it was really the only way? Well using the analogy of the child, you can tell him not to touch fire, and you can yank him away whenever he is about to put his hand on the stove. You can do this 100 times and save him a lot of pain. But the question is, will you do this indefinitely, or is there a point when you give up and let the child (who again, may by that time no longer really be a child anymore) burn him/herself? One thing you could do is, instead of letting him just put his hand on a burning stove, let him touch a burning match or something small if he's really so persistent or so ignorant. This way the damage is far less, but the pain is still there, etc.
I don't think it's ever an easy choice. On the one hand, STO does not interfere and goes with the natural flow of creation, on the other hand, STO exists because of empathy (at least on the level we understand), and all STO experiences pain whenever someone else experiences pain or suffers, and there is always a drive to help relieve this suffering and "asking" is what opens the door. But at which point does this drive become STS where you prevent others from suffering because of your own pain of seeing them suffer, and so it becomes about YOU and no longer about them and what's ultimately best for them? Going back to the child analogy, I don't think there is EVER a point where a parent (psychopaths not included in this example) simply is indifferent to his child's suffering. I don't think there is EVER a point where a parent can easily watch it happen, ever. And yet, most parents learn that the child HAS to suffer to some degree to develop responsibility for itself, to learn to protect itself and to function in the world, and to NOT be always reliant on the parent or anyone else to "take care of it". The parent knows he will die and the child will inevitably be left to fend for itself one way or another, so if the parent is wise, he will ease the child into it while he's still alive, which means the parent has to suck it up and despite his own pain, allow the child to feel pain and to experience life as it is. And while the parent might not want to just drop a bomb on the child, protecting him indefinitely is doing exactly that - creating a reliant and helpless being that, once the parent is gone, will completely be unprepared to handle the world as it all falls on his head at once.
But I guess the falling of the comets is really a big shocking "world falling on your head all at once" kind of ordeal for humanity. I don't want to see billions of people, most of whom good and loving people who just want happiness and peace, simply die and suffer. But I couldn't make such a decision simply based on my empathy - my empathy doesn't want anyone to suffer for any reason, but I know this is not only unreasonable, if I was to do everything in my power to relieve everyone of all "suffering" as I perceived it, I'd be doing far more harm than good. So I think empathy is just a guide, it allows the the possibility of a balanced choice (a psychopath has no possibility, his choice can only be based on his own desires), but you cannot just blindly prevent everything "bad" from happening to everyone and everything, then it becomes selfish and does far more harm than good - you wouldn't want to start protecting rabbits from wolves etc. So I think it goes back to the devil being in the details - to help relieve suffering and aid, but within limits of free will, and not to such a degree that it takes away the power and control of someone over himself and makes him reliant on you for his protection, survival, well-being, etc. Love, care, but be wise too.
The problem with being offered this choice of making the planet dodge a comet is probably that it won't give you an infinite time to contemplate the choice and completely avoid ever making it. You'll have to make it one way or another, and live with your choice. Ok sure with a time machine you could just hit pause and perhaps take a really long time to carefully think it all over. But eventually you'll have to hit play and choose. Not a pretty choice to be faced with that's for sure, but all there is is lessons. It makes me hurt just for the person who is faced with such a decision, because I know they'll be hurting trying to make the right choice and most beneficial for all involved, which can very well be to allow nature to take its course, which can mean a lot of pain and suffering for all, which might still be less than the suffering that results after interfering too. Perhaps there is no way to just avoid suffering, so either decision may include a LOT of suffering. The C's say out of the fire comes light, so that's definitely one thing to consider too.
