[Kael]

Our understanding also wouldn't matter if people truly were compelled to behave a certain way ("choosing" the direction of "greater satisfaction," for example), unless our "direction of greater satisfaction" were subjective, and based of what we happen to know at any given time. This is rather problematic for Lessans' claim that this knowledge will suddenly end all conflict in the world, since a great deal of conflict stems from people making good decisions on incomplete information. So, unless we also have some sort of mechanism that allows us to see all the possible consequences of any given choice, then even under this "revolutionary discovery" people will still be making decisions based on incomplete information, which can and will result in conflict, suffering, and all the other things he claims will suddenly be no more in the New Golden Age.

So, are people truly compelled to not "strike a first blow?" If so, why aren't people already behaving that way? If this compulsion does not kick in until and unless they understand the underlying principles Lessans lays out, then how do they acquire information on how their decisions will affect people, and thus which direction of "greater satisfaction" will avoid "striking a first blow?" Do they obtain such information the same way they do now, or will they be substantially better at making such evaluations once they understand these principles? Or will there be an entirely new source of information about how their choices affect others, far more complete than any they can access now, and thus less prone to causing bad decisions simply from a lack of information?

"Voila, we won't hurt others!" won't work here, I want to know how Lessans' "discovery" actually addresses the problem of harming others because of inadequate or inaccurate information when making decisions.