banner_jpg
Username/Email: Password:
News Article
New Poll - World Ruler
This week's poll was suggested by jacob66. You know all those 4X games where you control the world or a civilization? Would you want to do that in real life?

You can submit poll ideas here
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903

Previous Poll Results:
Question: Would you rather be
Choices:
Deaf - votes: 2970 (89.6%)
Blind - votes: 344 (10.4%)
There were 3314 total votes.
The poll ended: November 20th 2021

So mute > deaf > blind
Posted by lambchopsil on 
November 20th 10:41pm
Comments ( 49 )  
[ View ]  [ Add ]
Comments

» Jooles on November 20th, 2021, 4:17pm

If you vote yes, you're delusional and in desperate need of some self-awareness.

Coincidentally, torturing every human with it should be the first item on any newly-omnipotent ruler's agenda.

-edit-

Just realized that the question and the answers don't really align. Point above is aimed at those that think they "could make the world much better".

thread

» Aleph0 on November 21st, 2021, 6:25pm

Yes, this poll could as well have been worded "are you suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect?" (that's the one where the less you know about something the more you are likely to overestimate your own competence).

This poll reminds me of the quote "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong"

thread

» zarlan on November 21st, 2021, 6:45pm

@Aleph0
My response to that, would be to say that there is clearly no doubt, that the current politicians/leaders, are suffering from Dunning-Kruger, as well as thinking of simple solutions, to complex problems. Far more so, than the average person who would answer "yes" in this poll. (I have a low opinion of humanity as a whole, and thus those people …but not as low as my opinion of politicians)
They are utterly incompetent, dishonest, ignorant, have terrible judgement, don't look for or listen to the competent/knowledgeable/expert ('cause of course they know best! No reason to listen to experts, researchers, or look at what others do, to see if one can learn from it), and have all the wrong motivations and incentives.
I'd generally far prefer someone with the right attitude/motivations/incentives, over someone who is far more skilled and experienced, but with horrible attitude/motivations/incentives.

To say that someone who answers "yes", and explains how he'd have multiple different (so as to relatively control for biases, chance, and the like) teams of info gatherers, researchers, analysts and the like (not the kind of people, who deal with simplistic answers) to inform his decision/actions, is guilty of Dunning-Kruger and seeing simple solutions to complex problems…
I'd say that betrays a certain tendency towards Dunning-Kruger, and giving a simple answer, to a complex issue.

thread

» Aleph0 on November 22nd, 2021, 1:56pm

Ahahah touché 🤣
Then again, the same applies to your oversimplification of the issue regarding politicians. They obviously cannot enact any short-term unpopular but long-term beneficial reforms if they're voted out right away (and those reforms get repealed soon after), so they'll push forward some crowd-pleasing policies to maximize their reelection chances, but then the opposition pushes an even more populist agenda and so on, so I guess ultimately every country has the politicians it deserves...

thread

» zarlan on November 22nd, 2021, 3:42pm

Quote from Aleph0
Ahahah touché 🤣

My comment contained no jokes, or anything else that is, at all, amusing…
Quote
your oversimplification of the issue regarding politicians.

Oversimplification? How so?
Quote
They obviously cannot enact any short-term unpopular but long-term beneficial reforms if they're voted out right away (and those reforms get repealed soon after)

1. That shows a serious flaw in the current system.
2. Yes they can …and, in the long run, such politicians would gain respect. (something that most politicians do not have)
3. Unpopular? Unpopular among whom? Why is it unpopular?

Generally, what you call "unpopular", is mainly just unpopular among the rich and powerful. To the extent that it is unpopular among the population, it is only unpopular because they are ignorant (or more often deeply misinformed), about it

…though, to some extent, some efforts will seem bad/dubious to the layman, despite anyone who looks into it properly and knows the issues well, sees that it is clearly good.
But that is part of why we have political representatives, who are given the power to make the decisions, rather than letting people vote on every single thing (granted, the obvious practical concerns, are the main reason, but still…)
Quote
so they'll push forward some crowd-pleasing policies to maximize their reelection chances

Except they practically never do that.
They do what pleases themselves, and the rich and powerful.
Not the crowds.

They try to manipulate the information, to get people to think that what they are doing is good, and what they oppose is bad. To make the people think that what they'd want to get, is impossible, and that the efforts of the politicians are as far as you could possibly go, even if it is very far from it.
That isn't crowd-pleasing.
It is crowd-fooling.
It is being manipulative.

Well, they sometimes get the crowd to be concerned with a scapegoat, and push for policies in regards to that, but…
That isn't being crowd-pleasing.
It is being manipulative.
Quote
so I guess ultimately every country has the politicians it deserves...

That assumed that every country is a proper, informed, free, and properly representative democracy.
…which they most certainly are not.
(specially when it comes to countries with majoritarian voting systems, such as, e.g., the UK and US)

thread

» alidan on November 27th, 2021, 2:18am

100% depends on what 'rule the world' means.
do I have complete uncontested authority?
will they follow my policy regardless of its results?
will other interests decided it's a good time to take me out, as this says "instantaneously, at no death or personal cost" but has no stipulation to post enthronement?

lets assume that humans would follow me, and I could nosedive this bitch straight into the ground and they would be following right behind.

1) Institute a universal language.
1a) All works would be mandated to be translated to the universal language either through dubbing or subtitling along with a repository for words and the significance of them if no clean translation is possible, see one piece nakama not having a clean translation to english and an example.

This rule would give all of humanity a common ground.

2) some level of cultural protections

there are aspects of culture that create what we love about an area that only come from them because of the culture, so while I would love to remove malignant cultures from the world, see some of the us army stories about working with afghan people, and the people they had to turn a blind eye too because it was 'their culutre', there are also aspects of culture that were necessary for the entertainment we enjoy to even exist.

3) get a group of people together to devise new laws and strip all current laws

in america we have laws that are contradictory, that depending on how interpreted could have many loopholes, see america's politicians taking bribe money and the revolving door that makes is so easy to see who takes money from who, but because they weren't given a sack of cash and told 'do X and you get $' its not legally a bribe. there are SO many laws that are in place that you can dance around, and the major argument for not doing anything is 'well business will leave' but if i'm the sole ruler, where the hell will they go to? so over the course of 1-5 years we will get a baseline set of laws needed for civil society, written in plain english so anyone with a 8th grade + reading comprehension will know what the law states and means, so there is no dancing around legal definitions that need to constantly be interpreted.

3a) fineing of any corporation or business that flagrantly tries to weasel in between the lines will be several years worth of companies gross profit, not net, this would effectively kill all but the biggest companies.
3b) individuals will be looked at on a per case basis, with legal observers for the law to make sure it was clear enough and in case its not clear, a rewording along with potential nulling of the crime due to it being unclear.

this should cover most of the injustice in the world, there will be rot no matter what, but it would completely remove legal ambiguity and loopholes, with a system that finds and closes them

4) dealing with the waste food of the west

I dont think its a big secret that world hunger is a logistics problem and not a 'we cant feed them all' problem, in fact the last estimate I remember was world hunger is solved with 27 billion dollars a year. with me as a ruler, countries can't outright refuse food because a environmentalist told them its poisoned, yes this has happened.

5) en masse funding for solving sustainability issues.

see the lithium battery issue, we don't have enough lithium on earth to make everything electric powered. we still need fossil fuels, we still need, coal power, but the funding of research to get passed that is 100% required, and pussyfooting around the issue with small sums of money isn't an option. figuring out how to get more power out of solar then we put in to produce a panel is necessary, as an example.

I believe that if these issues are solved/worked on/implemented, and the world slowly shifted over to the new systems, it would largely be seen as a positive by most people, because let's be real, when the king dies and a new king is in charge how does that affect the common person? it largely doesn't. but putting out positive change in every area would get common people very reluctant to change for the wrose.

let's be real with this, I can't be worse then what's already in charge, and ruler of the world doesn't have the looming threat of nuclear holocaust for the next war we are screaming head first tward.

thread

» Peep on November 27th, 2021, 3:16am

Quote
see the lithium battery issue, we don't have enough lithium on earth to make everything electric powered


You do not have to use lithium for batteries.
https://www.power-technology.com/features/lithium-battery -alternatives/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S24 05829715301148
It just happens to be pretty optimal for the size/weight and the charge capacity. You might get similar results from other metals though.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/20180 1/why-is-lithium-good-both-batteries-and-bipolar-disorder
Interestingly, there is a CCP controlled Tibetan water that has lithium in it, I do not know if it is naturally like that or they add it to the water to placate/calm people in China.

thread

» zarlan on November 28th, 2021, 2:39am

Quote from alidan
100% depends on what 'rule the world' means.
do I have complete uncontested authority?

I'd generally assume that I have a force that forces governments to obey me. Or that they will obey me, by some other means. (like having something like the geass in Code Geass, or the slavery magic you so often see in isekai, on all the leaders [including military], or something)
Any less would just mean that you get put down real quick, which makes the whole question completely useless.
"Would you choose to, technically, be the ruler of the world, for a few seconds before you're taken out?" isn't really an interesting question, after all.
Quote
1) Institute a universal language.

That sounds like a great idea, superficially, but…
That would mean eliminating diversity, eliminating diverse viewpoints and ways of thinking, eliminating culture…
I take it, that you are monolingual? (possibly having a limited understanding of one or two Second Languages)
Quote
1a) All works would be mandated to be translated

…including all scientific works. (scientific papers and the like)
Though I obviously disagree with the "…to the universal language"-bit.
Quote
see one piece nakama not having a clean translation to english and an example.

Nakama has no perfect translation, but it is absolutely not a word that is difficult or problematic to translate, as the groups who keep it untranslated like to claim. (I'm not someone who thinks that everything should always be translated, mind. I'm generally against removing honorifics e.g.)
There are some words and phrases that are difficult, or arguably impossible, to translate
…but nakama sure isn't one of them.
(also wordplay is difficult, often impossible, to translate …and there are two schools of thought, in regards to translation of poetry: Some say it's extremely difficult. Other say it's impossible)
Quote
so while I would love to remove malignant cultures from the world

I don't think that there are any cultures that are completely malignant, as a whole. Rather some cultures have certain cultural aspects/part, which are malignant.
Aspects that should be removed, and not defended with the excuse of "it's culture".
Quote
3) get a group of people together to devise new laws and strip all current laws

Mm, that's one of the steps I'd also implement.
I'd first put some basic laws, that all countries must follow (some that just simply get implemented right away, in the way I say they do, some that they get t implement themselves), above their current laws, as a first step
…before I have multiple teams of scientists and law experts, work on creating new laws, to replace the old ones. Competely throwing out the old ones.
Quote
and the major argument for not doing anything is 'well business will leave'

Which is wrong for two reasons:
1. No they won't. (well, they might "move their headquarters", but… There are ways to get around tha kind of BS, if you don't mind upsetting the rich and powerful. And as a ruler of the world, there is no reason to)
2. Even if some of them do, it would still be worth it. (of course, if you do it in every country, they have nowhere to run)
Quote
3a)

Absolutely! And when they make profits illegally, they shouldn't just get fines. They should get all profits (company profits as well as employee/CEO bonuses… everything!) confiscated.
If you rob a bank, you don't get to keep the money you stole …so why should companies get to?
The people responsible should get proper punishments…
And if a company is "too big to fail", then you let the people responsible fail, and have the government (temporarily) take over the company.
I could go on. (if I had someone ghostwrite for me, I could [and gladly would] probably create quite a tome, on politics …and another on ethics)
Quote
but it would completely remove legal ambiguity and loopholes, with a system that finds and closes them

Nothing can completely remove any ambiguity or loopholes …which is why you need a system, that seeks out and fixes any ambiguity or loopholes. (in Japan, however, they tend to just go with the letter of the law, and ignoring its spirit, and typically let loophole abuse become routine behaviour…)
Quote
4) dealing with the waste food of the west

Oh it's far from only "the West", where you have food waste. It's everywhere.
A lot of it is due to logistics. There is enough food to feed everyone. Just not in the right place, at the right time …but yes, there is also the kind of food waste that you are thinking of, as well, which is also a big problem.
Quote
5) en masse funding for solving sustainability issues.

Of course!
Quote
see the lithium battery issue, we don't have enough lithium on earth to make everything electric powered.

There is more than you think, and lithium is recyclable, and there is plenty of research into non-lithium batteries, but…
With current technology and resources, the Earth can be 100% powered by renewables. As plenty of experts have pointed out.
The only real obstacles, are the politicians, and how beholden they are to the rich/big companies.
Quote
figuring out how to get more power out of solar then we put in to produce a panel is necessary, as an example.

The notion that it takes more energy to create a solar panel, than the panel produces, is clearly false.
Quote
let's be real with this, I can't be worse then what's already in charge

As a misanthrope, I don't quite trust you to be the ruler of the World, even though I agree with most of your comment
…though I am inclined to think that, short-term, you'd be a hell of a lot better than the people currently in charge, given how I'm also convinced that those in power, are just a step above the worst (the worst are usually too terrible to manage to get into power), but long-term… I dunno.

Me ruling the World, however… (and, as I've said, I'd set things up, and seek to get things self-sustaining, so that I can leave the job, and simply let the countries of the World continue on as proper democracies. [the current "democracies", are far from representative, and hardly have informed voters] As well as having teams dedicated to reducing/eliminating/reversing any corrupting influence the power would have on me)

thread

» residentgrigo on November 20th, 2021, 4:24pm

No, that's too much work and pressure. The pressure part is the issue. I don´t want to go down as history's greatest monster. Something about roads and good intentions... I already have a job when I manage a library with 4 people under me and almost no fucking money. I ain´t herding 7 billion cats.

My Non-Japanese Live-Action adaptations poll suggestion was apparently a curse now that Cowboy Bebop turned out to be a near historic trainwreck. I expected nothing but goddamn.
User Posted Image

thread

» hahhah42 on November 20th, 2021, 5:39pm

How are we defining "completely and totally" here? Every government in human history has had some level of failure to impose its will on the populace.

Anyway, the answer is a yes under most circumstances that could reasonably fit that phrasing. I'd impose a modest wealth tax on people worth over 10 figures, pocketing a small percentage and devoting the rest to general welfare/charitable endeavors, then eliminate the position of world dictator, turning power back over to the nations that currently exist.

I'd be rich, there'd be no large-scale hatred directed towards me as a result of my minimal policies (less risk of post-abdication assassination), and it's unlikely to result in any significant upheavals that weren't already en route to happening.

thread

» hkanz on November 20th, 2021, 8:25pm

Probably not. I don’t believe in one person making decisions for the entire world. If the alternative was someone else doing it though, then yes. There are too many corrupt despots already. At least I know that I’m unqualified and could delegate the work to people who aren’t, like my new bestie Jacinda Ardern ❤️

Quote from residentgrigo
My Non-Japanese Live-Action adaptations poll suggestion was apparently a curse now that Cowboy Bebop turned out to be a near historic trainwreck. I expected nothing but goddamn.


I watched the trailer and saw that Spike is middle-aged and felt weirded out. I’m now imagining a timeline where he was a florist for 20 years before joining the syndicate, because no one with his lifestyle should have been able to survive so long.

thread

» residentgrigo on November 21st, 2021, 6:46am

Quote from hkanz
I watched the trailer and saw that Spike is middle-aged and felt weirded out. I’m now imagining a timeline where he was a florist for 20 years before joining the syndicate, because no one with his lifestyle should have been able to survive so long.

Nah. Being a near alcoholic, chain-smoking, death-seeking bounty hunter living in the end times with the space mafia after your ass is a great recept to reach your late 40s. Yeah. Spike and Vicious are part of Club 27 for a reason and Harold is simply too old (outside of being miscast) and out of his element to do the stunts. Crazy cuts, extreme closeups and clear doubles are used. Not that I wanted mid-40s Keanu Reeves to have done it 10 years ago but he could have made the physicality work. And some of the zaniness.

The best-chosen actor out of the miserable lot is the new Jet Black and he gets to play an 80s caricature of a too old for this shit black guy. His divorced dad energy now transformed into him being just that and I have to stop here or I would end up writing 10 thousand words on why the show is racially insensitive at best and racist at worse. Actual blacksploitation, orientalism and a fundamental misunderstanding of the dystopian setting of the OG show and why the China mafia that was modeled after the Qing Dynasty ran the world and not the Yakuza are the highlights. It is now controlled by John Noble... like WTF is this? His son (!!!) Vicious, a main character and in every ep, might also be the worst main villain in such media. Bebop is a show from 98 but could have come out last week, minus the 4:3. But then again, Snyder is bringing that back! Zack Snyder´s Cowboy Bebop... could have worked. The 2021 show comes off as a relic from the mid-90s and is a Hard-R in the worst way possible. My 3/10 review on IMDB feels a point too high. The last time an adaptation of Japanese media pissed me of this much was Berserk 2016/17. Thank Zod that Arcane Act 3 and The Great S2 came out at the same time.

Hideo Kojima stopped after just 1 ep and he LOVES trash. Smart man. I only saw the pilot in full but clicking through the rest to have context for the many YT and podcast takedowns to follow was way too much. Like sipping raw sewage. I wish I could go full Thunberg on these showrunners. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood. I was 14 then but whatever.

thread

» hkanz on November 22nd, 2021, 8:00pm

Now I kind of want to watch it to see how many strange changes they made. But yeah, all those changes seem horrible. I’m not sure why they would look at the character whose only personality traits are Ambitious and Hates Spike and think ‘this dude should be in every episode’, especially since the various bounties act as antagonists and the series doesn’t need an ever-present main villain. I’m also invested in Jet’s love life since Ganymede Elegy was the only episode that I felt super differently about when I watched it as an adult!!

thread

» kuchra on November 20th, 2021, 9:09pm

Somehow I doubt every single person who answered "yes" is the one true perfect leader the world needs.

I answered "no" simply because I'm perfectly aware I'm nowhere near capable of governing the entire world. And I doubt anyone is. The idea alone is laughable.

That so many would think otherwise is actually unnerving.
What the hell? Surely we could not be that full of ourselves.

thread

» zarlan on November 20th, 2021, 10:41pm

I'd rather not, what with it being a hassle, but…
Given what utter shit the world is like, and how the people in power don't even think of doing even the most obvious things to fix things…

Yes.

I'd do my best, to delegate as much as possible (also I would, of course, have multiple teams of researchers, analysts and information gatherers [as well as re-hauling various systems in science to make them better and more free from corruption and bias], to give me the most solid and objective possible information, to base decisions on), and do my utmost to try to teach people to be at least halfway decent and non-stupid non-fools, so that I'd no longer need to
…though I imagine that would take a few generations.
Might not manage it, unless I manage to find a way to halt/reverse ageing, but after say…
50 years?
After that long, things might start to get stable, and I could just give it over to democratic rule.
Well, ideally.

Humans have the potential to not be immoral, dishonest, idiotic, foolish, wilfully ignorant scum
…and with proper education and some few other things (such as a bit of obligatory community service, once every few years, for example), you might have some number of people choosing to fulfil that potential, of being at least halfway decent. (hopefully even some being more than just halfway)
…and if you get a majority of decent people…

Do I think I'd be the perfect ideal ruler?
Hell no!
But compared to the alternatives:
Absolutely!
As things are, with even the best countries (that doesn't incl the US, which is among the worst) run by immoral/amoral, idiotic morons, and are completely atrocious, and they're going towards human extinction, for the sake of not suffering a reduction of short-term profit…
I fail to see how I could possibly make things any worse, than that.

I don't have an arrogant overinflated view of myself.
No. I have just realised that everyone else is atrocious.
(kinda like how I realised I was unusually good at English [in this non-English speaking country], not due to realising how good I was, but by realising how much worse everyone else was. I've later realised that I learned it as a First Language, so… of course I'd be better at it)

I'm generally anti-dictatorship, but…
with how terrible everyone is (not just politicians, but also the voters who vote for them), and how everyone is immoral, dishonest, idiotic, foolish, wilfully ignorant scum…
I'd not be against the one person I know to be at least halfway decent, i.e. me, taking over the world. (not that there is any chance of that happening, of course)
Not quite something I'd have said, all that seriously, before I became a misanthrope.

Oh, and given the "no personal cost" bit, I am assuming that I am able to be a "shadow"-ruler.
I.e. no one knows that I am the one who is in charge. I order the guy(s) who is/are "officially" the ruler(s).

thread

» HikaruYami on November 21st, 2021, 5:38pm

Quote from zarlan
Not quite something I'd have said, all that seriously, before I became a misanthrope.


This is the crux of it, isn't it?

The people voting yes aren't just sociopaths like some commenters are implying. They're a mix of sociopaths and people who have simply lost all hope for humanity.

I also voted yes. If I had the opportunity I think it would be irresponsible to *not* take it.

thread

» Peep on November 21st, 2021, 12:22am

I picked no.
The scenario is a little confusing, but the goal of ruling the world is so comicbook ish. What's the point? Most people can't even manage their own households or lives. Imagine playing The Sims and having to micro manage everything but multiply it by a million; screw that.

No matter what intentions you set out with or your supposed good heart or w.e, you are going to be corrupted. Especially since there is no consequence of you being killed, it'd become like a videogame where you can sacrifice little units and they become a number. Even dictators have to worry about keeping the people happy or under control so there is no a mass rebellion or assassination attempt on them.

I am sure we all have our own ideas on how we'd improve the world by eliminating corruption, improving food distribution networks etc, but that's the short term. I don't even mean fifty years later, the world would probably become boring as I highly doubt people would keep opposing voices around long.
There are a lot of mentally ill people online, I am pretty sure the world would be worse because some lunatic would seek to deal out their twisted ver of justice of people he dislikes.

None of us are infallible, we are all emotional creatures, and we all have biases, that is not a good combo for grand undisputed ruler with no other power keeping them in check.

thread

» zarlan on November 21st, 2021, 2:59pm

Quote from Peep
Most people can't even manage their own households or lives.

Mm, but most people don't have tons of underlings to help one manage it.
Quote
Imagine playing The Sims and having to micro manage everything but multiply it by a million; screw that.

You'd only have to micromanage the things, and to the degree, that you choose.
Quote
No matter what intentions you set out with or your supposed good heart or w.e, you are going to be corrupted.

That's why I'd do my best to get people around me, who are as competent as possible, who would challenge me, as well as multiple teams of researchers, analysts and information gatherers (including opinion polls, BTW) …as well as a team of experts on how people can get corrupted, who set up systems, rules, frameworks etc, to prevent/reduce/warn any hints/risk of corruption.
Quote
but that's the short term.

…and if I manage to get things to be proper and stable, and have educated the people into being decent people, who are properly rational and informed, they have seen the obvious benefits of the various things I've done, and are fully aware of how/why they are good…
Then that short-term should become something that will continue, under a free democracy.

…and if I took over the world, I'd set things up, as an ideal democracy, except with me as a dictator, on top …so that, when things seem good and stable, with a decent, moral, rational, well educated and informed public, I can simply remove the top dictator-layer of the governance, and simply let it run as a democracy …and finally be rid of the annoying burden, of ruling the world.
Quote
the world would probably become boring as I highly doubt people would keep opposing voices around long.

In a world where critical thinking and questioning authorities is strongly encouraged, where mindless obedience removes any chance of getting any high-ranking positions/jobs, and where the ruler sometimes listens to and adheres to what the critics say (if it makes sense), where opposition to the ruler and cries for democracy is perfectly well accepted…
Would opposing voices really stop?
Quote
I am pretty sure the world would be worse because some lunatic would seek to deal out their twisted ver of justice of people he dislikes.

Even with any possible flaws my rule would entail (and I can't rule out the possibility that I'm a bit twisted, after I've become a misanthrope. Though I can rule out being a lunatic), I couldn't possibly make things worse, than how they are now.
Quote
None of us are infallible, we are all emotional creatures, and we all have biases, that is not a good combo for grand undisputed ruler with no other power keeping them in check.

…which is why, for all its huge flaws (mainly how stupid the public is), democracy is still the best possible form of government.
And dictatorship is pretty much the worst.
Having great amounts of power, in the hands of one single person, is a bad idea.

…with the exception of having me rule the world, that is.

thread

» Sosseres on November 21st, 2021, 4:58am

I would hate being world leader. We do need to speed up on global warming, so I would take it with the main goal to solve that. If deemed possible I would also remove all nations and setup a new global government, having extreme military budgets removed would be helpful.

thread

» Ceiye on November 22nd, 2021, 1:05am

Okay I know what you mean, but for a split second, I interpreted "we do need to speed up on global warming" as "we need to increase the rate at which the globe is warming" like some kind of horrible despot speedrun. Can't mess up being a ruler if your goal is world destruction

thread

» RoxFlowz on November 21st, 2021, 7:49am

No. Capability issues aside, that would be a horrible life. I'd rather keep enjoying my insignificant existence than shoulder the whole fricking world.

thread

» residentgrigo on November 21st, 2021, 9:46am

Come to think of it. The world controller in Brave New World and the The Architect (what a cool idea done so...meh) in The Matrix weren´t evil and made more functioning words than we have. Don´t be surprised if Galadriel´s reason to reject the One Ring is the only logical outcome. The Bakshi version of that scene. One of the few truly great bits in that adaption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltwAEQ4kGg

Juuni Kokki (Novel) ends up being about our topic btw. A shame the anime "only" got 45 eps. Still worth seeing even if the story just stops. Don´t we all know that feeling? And Good luck finding a successor to do your duty. Genghis Khan ended up with his grandson Kublai Khan taking over and being as "great" with his son holding the reigns in between. Such success stories aren´t the norm.

thread

» zarlan on November 21st, 2021, 3:03pm

Quote from residentgrigo
Juuni Kokki (Novel) ends up being about our topic btw. A shame the anime "only" got 45 eps. Still worth seeing even if the story just stops.

The books are great, but the anime…
I couldn't bear to watch more than a single episode of the anime. It's just too wrong.

Becoming a monarch, in that universe, would be a very terrible curse… Your stuck with it, for life …and if you start getting corrupt, you can't just step down or anything. You've got to either stop being corrupt, somehow (and you can't go off and take a vacation somewhere, to get un-corrupted. You keep being the monarch) …or die.

thread

» Amplify1 on November 21st, 2021, 4:21pm

No, Absolutely not.

I wouldn't mind creating some sort of omnipotent / near-omni god to do it with some instructions or something like that, but I'd never do it myself because even before I consider that my biases would likely get in the way pretty quickly if I had to face it every day and I'd want to be absolutely certain that couldn't happen, I detest fame and would 99 times out of a hundred prefer to just be some anonymous guy living a fairly standard life. If that makes sense.

thread

» zarlan on November 21st, 2021, 6:32pm

Quote from Amplify1
I wouldn't mind creating some sort of omnipotent / near-omni god to do it with some instructions or something like that

Ah yes, I didn't think of that option!
A god who has a precise understanding of my wishes (tapped into my mind, to know it) and bound to follow it.
That way, you get rid of the annoyance of having to deal with it, you remove the risk of being corrupted (the one whose views/standards are used to rule over the world, isn't the person in charge. Isn't the person with the power), and utterly remove any risk of fame or knowledge of ones involvement!

thread

» Amplify1 on November 22nd, 2021, 5:34am

Quote from zarlan
Ah yes, I didn't think of that option!
A god who has a precise understanding of my wishes (tapped into my mind, to know it) and bound to follow it.
That way, you get rid of the annoyance of having to deal with it, you remove the risk of being corrupted (the one whose views/standards are used to ...


There's basically three conditions I feel would have to be met for some sort of lasting utopia to work, or as close to such a thing could ever be achieved since a 'perfect' utopia would inevitably break down (search for "Universe 25" mouse utopia experiment):
1: I've already mentioned this, you'd have to have somebody incorruptible and damn near omnipotent, like the player in a game of Simcity.

2: You'd pretty much have to have a second earth (or something new like a ring world or whatever) to make it work, invite anybody who isn't liable to want to make the lives of those around them miserable, isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of common sense, and obviously also wants to come. Everyone else just stays on OG earth and carries on as things are now and people can go back to Earth from Earth 2.0 if they want or need be, since there are always going to be people who simply enjoy making others miserable or are closet control freaks or whatever but any 'solution' that'd involve suppressing a bunch of the population or forcing them to leave is never going to work and will just end up going very badly, so they can have earth and everyone else goes to a new one. If Earth 2.0 is created by the being from the first point, then theoretically nobody should be able to complain if they're not invited to what is basically their property.

3: Freedom must be an absolute and inalienable right, short of trying to take freedom away from others, both in terms of freedom of action and freedom of speech. If you want to live a great and fulfilling life - go for it. If you want to fuck up your life and do nothing - go for it. If you want to live fast and die young - I ask only that you try to avoid taking anybody with you but otherwise go for it.

That's basically just to get to the starting line, to get something *good* going you'd have to add a few more things, since I'd basically have to rub a magic lamp to get to this point anyway:
A: Some sort of system that on the day you're born or otherwise first arrive, could go through every single possible outcome and pathway that person could take from that point, and creates what is basically a 100% walkthrough (as if for a game) for that person's life which results in the highest overall happiness percentage for them that they could ever possibly achieve, which they can view each day's listing for as it comes. If somebody wants to follow the guide step by step / day by day and reach their theoretical maximum possible happiness, they can do that. If they want to do their own thing in their own way and occasionally do follow the instructions for a day when they're stuck and don't know what to do, they can do that. If they want to intentionally ignore the entire thing and just do things their own way as long as it's their own choice, that's equally good. The same system could also give that person a list of what hobbies they would enjoy the most along with what their greatest talents are, assuming doing so wouldn't somehow ruin that person's happiness.

B: Even the playing field as much as is reasonably possible. The ability to unfailingly cure any disabilities or ailments so you're not left with situations like a young girl who would love to be a Ballerina, but unfortunately happens to be a quadriplegic or whatever else. Additionally the government or whatever you'd want to call the omnipotent being running the place would give assistance (perhaps through an AI set up for the purpose) equal to however much somebody is willing to help themselves in order to reduce cases where only some people get lucky with how they got to where they are and make it so that most (all?) people who work hard enough succeed with their endeavors at least to some extent. Honestly that could take the form of the government / AI being the ones to promote people for jobs and things like interviews and job listings getting relegated to history and most people get their ideal job or at least work in their ideal field.

C: Give people the ability to access a game like stats screen detailing various things that people can access as they like. Right now the only really visible indicator of how somebody is doing in life is the balance of their bank account and that's a pretty bad metric to rely upon, if people can see how their studying or working out or whatever else they're doing is visibly improving themselves to be better people step by step, or what they're doing is harming themselves before the effects become too bad, I believe self improvement will become much more common and motivation in general will skyrocket.

There's other smaller things too, but at this point I'm rambling and I've typed enough as it is. There's also probably some stuff that I've not explained clearly or properly, but I hope what I'm saying at least somewhat comes across.

thread

» zarlan on November 22nd, 2021, 1:28pm

Quote from Amplify1
or as close to such a thing could ever be achieved since a 'perfect' utopia would inevitably break down

Indeed, there is no such thing as "perfect" …but a lasting "good" society
1. Nah, just someone who won't succumb too much to corruption, before the society has become self-sustaining.
As in, it will continue to work, and improve itself and its laws and rules, by itself, in the form of a truly informed democracy.

2. This point is… incoherent. Baseless. Not demonstrated. Why would you need this? Why wouldn't it work otherwise? You are talking about things as obvious, which are not. You have to explain this.
Quote
any 'solution' that'd involve suppressing a bunch of the population or forcing them to leave is never going to work and will just end up going very badly

How so? Based on what? …and how is there not tons of contrary evidence?

3. Depends on what you mean by absolute. No country treats freedom as an absolute.
There are plenty of laws, in pretty much any and all countries, that restrict your ability to endanger yourself. (seat-belt laws, e.g.) There is no sane reason, to remove those.

A: … No. That sounds terrible. Horrific. A terrible curse.

Quote
B: Even the playing field as much as is reasonably possible.

Absolutely!
Quote
equal to however much somebody is willing to help themselves


People who are too miserable, to even hope for help, or to improve their situation, should just be left to rot?
People who misbehave, should be punished and jailed, with not even the slightest attempt at rehabilitation?
Etc.
That sounds rather callous and, frankly, psychopathic…
Also completely contrary to any and all knowledge and science, in regards to such matters.

C: … I have no idea, what would possibly make you think that such a thing would be beneficial …or at all possible, or anything that could possibly be properly understood by everyone. This isn't a simplified game. People aren't that simplistic. The world is far too complex
…but again: It would not be beneficial. On the contrary, it would just cause massive problems. Insecurities, discrimination… etc etc

thread

» Amplify1 on November 22nd, 2021, 3:12pm

2. I don't see how it could or would ever be possible to have some sort of place / society that would work for all people all of the time. Remember the old addage, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
How about if you only invite the people who could be pleased all of the time? Ontop of that, why invite people like serial killers or child molesters etc if you can simply choose not to? I'm being given the option to rule over all people here, I'm choosing to leave half or so as they are right now to continue ruling themselves as life is on earth right now and only take / bother with the other half.

3. Not freedom to break laws, I'm not talking anarchy here, I thought I'd made that clear? The freedom to go about your life and make of it as you will without interference so long as you don't harm others in the process, the last part of that is what laws are generally there for, or supposed to be there for. Heck I could make an argument for no seatbelts if you like even, but the point is I'm more concerned about the passerbys than the car driver. If somebody wants to kill themselves by not wearing a seatbelt that's their choice, what's not okay would be hitting pedestrians as they can't reasonably choose to not be run over but the driver can make a choice to not be thrown through the windshield in the event of an accident. Does that make sense?

A: How so? Please explain. If I had a dollar or whatever for every time I've heard somebody lament that their life wouldn't be so terrible if they knew how to make it not so terrible (or words to that effect) then I'd be pretty rich, the system would be to give people like that the option to know what they can start or continue doing to improve their lives, what they could do to find happiness, purpose and general fulfillment in the simplest possible way. It would be in absolutely no way shape or form a requirement to use it but there an option for people who lack direction.

B:
Quote
People who are too miserable, to even hope for help, or to improve their situation, should just be left to rot?

The purpose of A is to help make it so that's a complete non-issue, so that there isn't anybody who falls into that category.
Quote
People who misbehave, should be punished and jailed, with not even the slightest attempt at rehabilitation?

The purpose of 2 is to help make it so that's a complete non-issue, so that there isn't anybody who falls into that category.
If there is nobody or as close to nobody who fits a specific situation as possible and actively resists all attempts made to help pull them out of a specific category, why worry about that situation? I also don't remember saying one single thing about punishment or jailing, so I've no idea where you've pulled that from.

C: We're talking absolute theoreticals here, as if I'd rubbed a magic lamp and gotten a wish, as I don't see how else I'd be getting to more or less program a living omnipotent being to run a giant world of billions of people here otherwise. As for what it'd show I'm talking mostly very simplified stats here, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, (whatever) along with satiety, thirst and maybe one or two other things along those lines that anybody can understand.
The point is to give people knowledge and affirmation for if something is helping or even harming them, it's difficult for people to keep something up even if they know it's supposed to be helping them unless they quickly start to see some results and a simple stat menu can give them that assurance that it is indeed helping them. Likewise the opposite is true and if somebody were to take drugs and see their constitution start to drop or whatever else that could be the motivation to stop doing that before the damage becomes severe. Some people are pretty much going to be insecure or discriminated against no matter what, this would hopefully at least give them visible goals they can work towards and the motivation to push forward if they can see themselves reaching said goals step by step.

I've left some stuff out for helping tie all of this together, most notably how education and coming of age would work, but I think that's most of the important stuff I was trying to say. The main point that I want to get across here is I want to give people the maximum theoretically possible amount of freedom and agency over their own lives, along with direction and motivation for those who want and/or need it and the opportunities to do so for those who want to strive for it. I do not wish to restrict people beyond the bare needed minimums of trying to prevent them killing or otherwise seriously harming others, I want them to have any and all possible knowledge and means to obtain happiness and fulfillment without any coercion, forcing, pampering and as little interference as is possible from me.

thread

» zarlan on November 22nd, 2021, 4:50pm

2. … None of that explained anything. I haven't a clue, as to WTH you're talking about.
Quote from Amplify1
Ontop of that, why invite people like serial killers or child molesters etc if you can simply choose not to?

Those are people you put in prison. Obviously.
As all countries do, currently
No society can possibly hope to function, without doing so.
Quote
3. Not freedom to break laws … I thought I'd made that clear?

Irrelevant, and not something I addressed.
I questioned what your view would be, in regards to what the laws would be, in regards to freedom. What the policy/attitude/ideology would be, in regards to laws that touch on freedom.
Quote
The freedom to go about your life and make of it as you will without interference so long as you don't harm others in the process

How far would you take that?
Quote
Heck I could make an argument for no seatbelts if you like even, but the point is I'm more concerned about the passerbys than the car driver. If somebody wants to kill themselves by not wearing a seatbelt that's their choice, what's not okay would be hitting pedestrians as they can't reasonably choose to not be run over but the driver can make a choice to not be thrown through the windshield in the event of an accident. Does that make sense?

It kinda makes sense. You've made your logic clear
…and is utterly wrong and abhorrent.
A rather callous and psychopathic view, IMO.
It's fine for them to die, rather than live and grow/improve and learn the wisdom of using seatbelts… etc?
Especially when it comes to those who are reckless, due to psychological issues.
You think society should just let those people get themselves killed…
Not really terribly different, to killing them, if you think about it.

Also, your assumption that it doesn't harm others, is wrong.
Aside from taking up emergency and medical resources, there is the issue of the people left behind, mourning their loss, the loss of potential… (when I say loss of potential: I'm not proposing that people be forced to do what is deemed to be most valuable to society, but… if they are allowed to live, they will still, most likely, do good in some way. At least under the system I'd implement …under which they would, most likely, also eventually become better and wiser people)
Quote
A: How so? Please explain.

You cease to have any real choice.
Your choices are meaningless.
You become, practically speaking, no more than a mindless machine, going through the motions.
(on that subject: I recommend reading the Dune books. And I mean Frank Herbert's ones. Not the later ones)
Quote
The purpose of 2 is to help make it so that's a complete non-issue

It wouldn't even come close to addressing the issue, in any way, much less solve it or make it a non-issue.
Quote
I also don't remember saying one single thing about punishment or jailing, so I've no idea where you've pulled that from.

Laws without enforcement, are not laws. They are no more than a worthless fiction.
The same applies to commands.
You cannot be a ruler, if you do not have laws. If you make no commands.
You would just be a guy stating his opinions.
Nothing more.
Quote
We're talking absolute theoreticals here

…and even theoretically, it's unfeasible.
And would be terrible.
Quote
As for what it'd show I'm talking mostly very simplified stats here, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, (whatever) along with satiety, thirst and maybe one or two other things along those lines that anybody can understand.

Such grossly over-simplistic "stats", would only serve to mislead, and misinform.
It would mean that people would get a FAR WORSE understanding of things.

And it would all the more easily lead to despondency, resignation, arrogance, discrimination… etc.
Quote
The point is to give people knowledge and affirmation for if something is helping or even harming them


You think that people do bad things, because they don't realise it is harmful?
…or that people who don't trust the experts, would trust their "stats-sheet"?
Quote
it's difficult for people to keep something up even if they know it's supposed to be helping them unless they quickly start to see some results and a simple stat menu can give them that assurance that it is indeed helping them.


That is kinda true, but…
Most things where that would be an issue, are issues where the progress is very slow, whether you can see it or not, so…
It wouldn't really help much, if at all
Quote
Likewise the opposite is true and if somebody were to take drugs and see their constitution start to drop or whatever else that could be the motivation to stop doing that before the damage becomes severe.

WTF are you talking about?
You think people who take drugs, give the faintest shit about any of that?
…or that they are able to just simply quit taking a drug, that they are addicted to?
You clearly have NO understanding of drugs, how/why people start taking drugs (and it certainly isn't because they think it's good, or that it is harmless), or how people get off of them.
Quote
Some people are pretty much going to be insecure or discriminated against no matter what

No.
Absolutely not!
Quote
this would hopefully at least give them visible goals they can work towards and the motivation to push forward if they can see themselves reaching said goals step by step.

Hell no!
It would show them how shit they are, and make them miserable and hopeless about it. Demotivate them.
You have no understanding of psychology, human behaviour, what affects behaviour, what encourages/discourages behavioural change, what increases/decreases motivation/confidence…

"Ignorance is bliss", I suppose…
You clearly know nothing, of those who are in a bad place.
Quote
without any coercion, forcing, pampering/…/


See the bit above, where I talked about laws and enforcement…
As to no "pampering"…
WTH does that mean?
No helping people who are down on their luck, gotten into accidents, have disabilities…
Anyone who takes a chance on an invention/business idea that doesn't work out, should be allowed to utterly fail and be unable to survive? (hence utterly discouraging people from taking chances, and severely limiting progress)
I suspect not.
Saying "no pampering" is meaningless, unless one first explains what one means by pampering.

I would, for example, implement a Universal Basic Income (enough to live on. Not just survive, mind you, but live) along with a housing guarantee (nothing fancy. A guarantee of decent basic housing. For anything better, you'd have to pay for the difference, from your own pocket).
Something some may regard as pampering

(speaking of which: I would also put in place strict laws and regulations, making sure that any and all politicians and journalists, have not salary/wages [also no stocks, investment funds, or anything like that], and get no significant gifts from anyone or anything, to avoid any risk of bribery, conflicts of interest, corrupt incentives, undue influence… etc. Naturally, they'd get expenses …but only for the basics. You have to go to travel to a meeting? You get basic plane tickets paid for, and a basic/cheap hotel, and basic/cheap meals. If they want better, they'll have to pay for the difference, from their own pocket.
Politicians and journalists are supposed to serve the public. To do what they do, from a desire to improve the world. Not to enrich themselves, or get fame and power …so why give them high salaries, and luxurious expenses? Why ensure that the people who decide the laws and policies, are restricted to those who are rich and out-of-touch with the majority of people? Especially out-of-touch with the poorest?)
Quote
and as little interference as is possible from me.

I kinda agree there.
I'd say as little interference as is necessary from me. (eventually letting me stand back and observe …and finally leave)
And as little interference as is needed/necessary from the State/county/municipality/whatever.

P.S.
Regarding overly simplistic stats: Just look at people who try to lose weight. They've got weight measurements (some have, if quite crude and imprecise, some measure of body fat percentage), but that is pretty useless and misleading, by itself. (not to mention the frankly idiotic use of BMI, on an individual. BMI can be used as a rough guide, in regards to the health of a population. It is completely useless, in assessing anything about an individual. It cannot tell if your over-/under-weight)
People try some fad diet, a lot of which (if they can keep to it) often do lead to quick losses in weight …which eventually leads to them gaining all of the weight back (and then some), as well as making it more difficult for them to lose weight. Anything that makes you quickly lose weight, is very counterproductive
…whilst seeming to be great, for someone who pays attention to the numbers.
Leading to a lot of people, having their weight go up and down like a yo-yo, in their desperate efforts to lose weight.
The actual science (unlike the pseudoscience that is plastered all over magazines, and so-called news sources [science journalism, especially when it comes to exercise and nutrition, is abysmal]) suggests a diet that gives you results that are pretty much unnoticeable, in the short term. It takes years, to notice that it's having an effect. (and even that won't necessarily be able to have anywhere near as great an effect as you'd want. Maybe medical science will be able to help with that, eventually, but…)
Despite having clear numbers.

thread

» Amplify1 on November 23rd, 2021, 1:44pm

Honestly this will probably be my last comment on this, or I'll just respond to one or two specific parts, as I don't have the time for comments that are this long. I've been typing bits of it slowly over the day in my bits of free time and can't keep that up long term.

2:
Quote
… None of that explained anything. I haven't a clue, as to WTH you're talking about.

Okay, I'll try laying it out again, as clearly and simply as possible:
- The omnipotent being uses their ability as a god to create a second earth, or earth like planet.
- They take everybody worthwhile who wants to come, to the second earth.
- Anybody else gets left behind to live on the original earth.
I don't know how much simpler than that I can make it.
Quote
Those are people you put in prison. Obviously.

Not my problem, they wouldn't be invited to come, as I keep trying to make clear and for some reason you don't understand.

3:
Quote
It kinda makes sense. You've made your logic clear
…and is utterly wrong and abhorrent.

It's not wrong, and it can be proven statistically. Look back in history to deaths caused by car accidents and if you compare the numbers before and after seat belts are invented then with seat belts there are (obviously) fewer deaths, great.
However if you break down that statistic further you'll find that while the number of car drivers who died dropped significantly, the number of pedestrians who were getting killed actually increased! The reason for this is because with the new found assurance that they would be far less likely to die in the event of an accident, car drivers started going faster and more recklessly which ended up with more pedestrians being hit and at higher speeds, resulting in additional deaths on that front. Yes, seat belts save lives overall if you look no deeper than the surface, but seat belts kill pedestrians.

Quote
It's fine for them to die, rather than live and grow/improve and learn the wisdom of using seatbelts… etc?

Hopefully you won't get yourself killed in the process so that you can learn a valuable lesson and be far more careful next time, but there's a major point which is where I think our major disconnect is here:
The government is not your parents.
The government or ruling body etc exists to make sure you can live your life with little to no impeding, just making sure that the country still runs and that your voice is represented on the international stage. It is not there to protect you from yourselves, only from others. You yourself ultimately have to be the one to decide that sticking a metal fork in your nearest wall socket is a bad idea, you cannot expect the government to forcefully slap it out of your hand and mandate that you have a plastic covering over it that physically prevents you from doing so. They can make all the information available so that you can make an informed choice sure, but if you want to be stupid then the only one who can ultimately stop you is you.

Quote
Especially when it comes to those who are reckless, due to psychological issues.
You think society should just let those people get themselves killed…

As I've previously said, I'd want to put things into place that would get people the help they need, or at least see about making sure only those who are mentally well enough do things that are potentially lethal.
You seem to enjoy assuming the worst, jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, and frankly it's getting tiresome.

Quote
Aside from taking up emergency and medical resources, there is the issue of the people left behind, mourning their loss, the loss of potential… (when I say loss of potential: I'm not proposing that people be forced to do what is deemed to be most valuable to society, but… if they are allowed to live, they will still, most likely, do good in some way. At least under the system I'd implement …under which they would, most likely, also eventually become better and wiser people)

I already hand-waved the first part as I'm assuming that healthcare is a complete non-issue as It would need to be basically infinite and renewable to the level of seeming like waving a magical wand.
It is the job of the "people left behind" to tell them to wear a seatbelt, or otherwise persuade them not to do (dangerous thing).

A:
Quote
You cease to have any real choice.
Your choices are meaningless.
You become, practically speaking, no more than a mindless machine, going through the motions.

Where the fuck do you get that from?
It would, each day, give people some advice that they can look up and follow if they so choose that would lead them in the right direction for that person's most fulfilling life. It would not be mandatory, it would not be an exact instruction list to follow robotically and you would still have to choose exactly how you want to go doing it, it would effectively be a self-help book that is uniquely tailored to each individual and their circumstances for that given day.

Quote
It wouldn't even come close to addressing the issue, in any way, much less solve it or make it a non-issue.

You self admittedly don't even have the slightest clue what I was talking about, yet you want to say it can't work?

Quote
Laws without enforcement, are not laws. They are no more than a worthless fiction.
The same applies to commands.
You cannot be a ruler, if you do not have laws. If you make no commands.
You would just be a guy stating his opinions.
Nothing more.

Okay, now please how me where I said that there would be no enforcement.

Quote
…and even theoretically, it's unfeasible.
And would be terrible.

The genie of the lamp can create an omnipotent god, he can create a stats menu.

Quote
Such grossly over-simplistic "stats", would only serve to mislead, and misinform.
It would mean that people would get a FAR WORSE understanding of things.

And it would all the more easily lead to despondency, resignation, arrogance, discrimination…

This could be addressed as easily as the menu telling you what triggered the change in stats. As for the rest you're going to have to justify your claims.

Quote
…You think that people do bad things, because they don't realise it is harmful?
…or that people who don't trust the experts, would trust their "stats-sheet"?

Some don't, not all. There's a limit to what you can do to help people help themselves without being intrusive and forcing them. Also considering that the stats sheer would be automatic and infallible, it'd be your loss if you don't trust it for whatever reason.
Do you want the government to rule over everybody with an iron fist, to force everybody to not do anything ever that could potentially harm themselves, to put foam padding on every sharp corner and make it impossible for you to so much as scrape your knee?
Because if not that's the sort of assuming you keep throwing at me, and if yes then frankly you're a lunatic.

Quote
WTF are you talking about?
You think people who take drugs, give the faintest shit about any of that?
…or that they are able to just simply quit taking a drug, that they are addicted to?

If they want to keep talking drugs to the point of addiction then they'd have to keep going through repeated stat drops and seeing it harm themselves. They also wouldn't be able to simply dismiss it as the drug not being harmful and something else being the cause of their failing health. If they do get addicted, go to the 100% cure all health service and get cleaned up. I will not slap the drugs out of their hands and tell them not to take them, they themselves have to be the ones to take that critical first step.

Quote
No.
Absolutely not!

Yes. Absolutely. If you have some delusion running through your head where it is even remotely possible that everybody holds hands and sings kumbaya forever with nothing bad ever happening, forget about it. Add any amount of magical handwaving problems away and you will still have basic human nature as the problem. If you want to forcefully make it so that discrimination is impossible then you will end up down a path of lobotomizing people.

Quote
Hell no!
It would show them how shit they are, and make them miserable and hopeless about it. Demotivate them.
You have no understanding of psychology, human behaviour, what affects behaviour, what encourages/discourages behavioural change, what increases/decreases motivation/confidence…

"Ignorance is bliss", I suppose…
You clearly know nothing, of those who are in a bad place.

That's rich, coming from you. It's also irrelevant, because if you are not willing to do a single thing to help your situation then I'm not willing to help either. No excuses, if you want to drown in your own misery and let it consume you, then that is on you. You cannot expect to be given a free piggyback ride to the goal, I do not give one single solitary fuck how feeling depressed and hopeless you're feeling. I can do everything reasonably possible to avoid you reaching that hopeless situation, I can do everything to illuminate the path out of it, but if you want to be forcefully pulled out of it by the government? Never going to happen, you must be willing to at least do something to help yourself. No exceptions.

Quote
As to no "pampering"…
WTH does that mean?

As I said previously, the government is not your parents. They are not there to pick you up if you fall down, or make you feel better or anything like that.
I can make it so that the path in front of you is as straight as is reasonably possible.
I can raise the valleys and lower the hills of it as much as is reasonably possible.
I can illuminate the next step of the path so that as much as is reasonably possible, so you'll know which way it is to the goal and to reduce the possibility of you tripping over some hidden pitfall to the absolute minimum.
I can send you some indirect encouragement however I can.
But, you absolutely *must* be the one who walks that path without government assistance on your own, one foot after the other. I cannot stress this hard enough. That first step may feel hard or even insurmountable, but I promise you each step after it will be a little bit easier to take. I don't guarantee you will never fall or fail, but I promise you that if you pick yourself up and keep trying you will succeed.
Indirectly shielding you from harm is perfectly fine and done as much as possible, but only indirectly.

Quote
I would, for example, implement a Universal Basic Income (enough to live on. Not just survive, mind you, but live) along with a housing guarantee (nothing fancy. A guarantee of decent basic housing. For anything better, you'd have to pay for the difference, from your own pocket).
Something some may regard as pampering

It would be pampering if you do it for nothing, I would have a similar system but rather than simply handing it out the housing guarantee would take some at least slight effort on the part of the person involved. As for universal basic income", I wouldn't go with that path, rather I'd make it so that it's possible to live life without ever needing to use money, as long as you're okay with the fact that it would obviously be a pretty meager existence.

Quote
speaking of which... (trimmed)

I'd just more or less eliminate the need for politicians entirely, since there's an omnipotent god around I can cheaty handwave things by having him know what the ideal solution for any given area would be that most closely fits that part of the country, tailor made for them, then have somebody follow that list. No room for corruption if you're only allowed to follow a set script.
As for the media, people would be made able to instantly see through any bullshit and know how worthwhile it is to trust a given journalist through any number of methods, no reporting partisan bs and hiding behind a shield, let's have some decent and accurate news for once.

Quote
Regarding overly simplistic stats

Basically, the stats menu would have to be fine tuned to make the consequences (immediate and long term) of anything readily apparent.

thread

» zarlan on November 24th, 2021, 2:11am

I guess the civility continues to drop…
Can't say I'm surprised, of course, what with my experiences here …and with humanity in general.
Quote from Amplify1
Honestly this will probably be my last comment on this, or I'll just respond to one or two specific parts, as I don't have the time for comments that are this long. I've been typing bits of it slowly over the day in my bits of free time and can't keep that up long term.

Understandable.
Complicated conversations do get a bit complicated and involved. It's a lot to deal with.
Quote
Okay, I'll try laying it out again, as clearly and simply as possible:

You just re-stated how you propose making a second Earth and inviting people to it
The one and only bit of #2, that was always clear and understandable, and which I NEVER asked about or expressed any confusion or lack of comprehension towards.
…without ANY explanation of, or even so much as addressing how or why it would be necessary and/or beneficial.
…so no.
That did NOT explain anything.
Quote
Not my problem, they wouldn't be invited to come, as I keep trying to make clear and for some reason you don't understand.

Except for the ones who do it, AFTER being invited.
Or the children of those who were invited.
…and saying that you'd exile them to the OG Earth, isn't a solution. It's just moving the problem, to somewhere else. (or are you saying that the people in OG Earth don't matter? 'Cause that sounds like the attitude of a psychopath)
Also, the people on the OG Earth who do it, have to be dealt with. (i.e. be put in prison)
Quote
It's not wrong, and it can be proven statistically.

Statistically? Are you for real?
Quote
Yes, seat belts save lives overall if you look no deeper than the surface, but seat belts kill pedestrians.


I'll not even bother replying to those… audacious claims.
None of that address the point that was argued, for which seat belt laws were only a convenient example. (well… usually convenient)

You didn't give any relevant reply, to my arguments/counter-arguments, but instead spouted a complete Red Herring.
Quote
Hopefully you won't get yourself killed in the process so that you can learn a valuable lesson and be far more careful next time


So you're fine with letting tons of people die needlessly and pointlessly. You think, if they're not smart enough, then let them die?
That also kinda sounds like the argument of libertarians, that you don't need health regulations for restaurants, because people will just avoid the places where you risk getting poisoned …except you can't know if a place is risky (even if it's been risk-free for ages. You can have a change of rules/regulations/staff/boss), until someone dies there, and you're just as likely as anyone else, of being the first one.
Quote
The government is not your parents.

The people who say that, are invariably talking of not government overreach, but more a desire for pretty much anarchy and letting people fend for themselves
(…and also typically for parents to have far too great a power, over their children)
They are perfectly fine with great impediments to ones freedom …as long as they are private impediments, rather than public/government impediments. (leading to far less overall freedom)
…and with what followed, you showed yourself to be no exception.
Quote
It is not there to protect you from yourselves

Why not?
Quote
They can make all the information available so that you can make an informed choice

No they can't.
No one can.
Humans are not all knowing (or knowing all that humanity knows), nor are they capable of being so.

The notion that people are, or can be, aware of all the options and all the facts, to be able to make informed decisions, is an absurd fiction.
Quote
As I've previously said, I'd want to put things into place that would get people the help they need

How so?
…and even if you have every possible thing in place, to get them the help they need, that would only somewhat reduce it from happening. It could never prevent it from ever happening. It would still happen, with some regularity.
Quote
or at least see about making sure only those who are mentally well enough do things that are potentially lethal.

We're not talking about something as relatively harmless, as extreme sports here.
What possible reason could there exist, to allow it? …and how would someone who would do it, be "mentally well"?
Also, as I've said:
The notion that it doesn't affect others, is flawed.
Quote
You seem to enjoy assuming the worst, jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, and frankly it's getting tiresome.

…says the guy who has as made bizarre and inexplicable mistaken assumptions about what I've said?

I am simply recognizing the consequences of what you say. Thinking about it, on more than just a superficial level. (I say "thinking", but I recognize the flaws instantly/automatically as soon as I read it, without need for any conscious thought. Not that I don't put further thought into it, after having read it, of course but…)
If you can't see beyond any more than one or two steps deep into the things you are proposing, then the fault is not on me.

…and it's not my fault that you are utterly terrible, at expressing yourself. I'm not that good at it myself, but I'm light-years above you.
Quote
I already hand-waved the first part as I'm assuming that healthcare is a complete non-issue

Why would you do that? That makes no sense.
Quote
as It would need to be basically infinite and renewable to the level of seeming like waving a magical wand.

It would need to be? Based on what?
…and the scenario is that you'd magically be the ruler of the world, not that you'd be omnipotent.
Quote
It is the job of the "people left behind" to tell them to wear a seatbelt, or otherwise persuade them not to do (dangerous thing).

It's kinda hard to convince a dead person.
…and a permanent cripple is a permanent cripple, regardless of whether he/she learns his/her lesson.
Quote
Where the fuck do you get that from?

That's pretty rich, coming from the person who spouts tons of inexplicable non sequiturs, without any hint of an explanation… and who misinterprets clear statements, and frequently gives completely irrelevant replies… (indicating a clear failure to understand what was said …and/or dishonesty)

To answer the question:
WTF do you mean? How could it be otherwise? …and I just explained it, didn't I?
Quote
It would not be mandatory

Your point being…?
You can follow the set route like a mindless robot, you can seek to rebel against it, or it can make you can lose all hope/will and become apathetic.
Neither alternative is anything short of miserable.
Quote
You self admittedly don't even have the slightest clue what I was talking about, yet you want to say it can't work?


As I've stated above, I never so much as hinted at an implication, that I didn't have the slightest clue, as to what the measure is, that you talk about.
Now give an actual answer!
Quote
Okay, now please how me where I said that there would be no enforcement.

Sure!
(emphasis mine)
"I also don't remember saying one single thing about punishment or jailing, so I've no idea where you've pulled that from."
"I want them to have any and all possible knowledge and means to obtain happiness and fulfillment (sic) without any coercion, forcing, pampering and as little interference as is possible from me."
Quote
The genie of the lamp can create an omnipotent god, he can create a stats menu.

The genie of the lamp, cannot create something that is logically inconsistent and incoherent. That is simply an impossibility, regardless of whatever magic explanation you use.
Well, except if you completely change humanity and/or the laws of physics, such that you have a world where it would work
…but then you'd have a completely different and unrecognizable world, or at least "humans" who are no longer anything like humans, being completely different and unrecognizable.
Quote
This could be addressed as easily as the menu telling you what triggered the change in stats.

That wouldn't make much of a difference.
Quote
As for the rest you're going to have to justify your claims.


Seriously?
You seriously don't see the obvious reasons ways in which it would have those effects?

If you can't, then you're so idiotic, that you're beyond help.
Quote
There's a limit to what you can do to help people help themselves without being intrusive and forcing them.

The stats-sheet is intrusive. (and misguided)
Quote
Also considering that the stats sheer would be automatic and infallible

…and people should obviously trust that it is, because…?
Quote
Do you want the government to rule over everybody with an iron fist, to force everybody to not do anything ever that could potentially harm themselves, to put foam padding on every sharp corner and make it impossible for you to so much as scrape your knee?

Just because you're suggesting one extreme, doesn't mean that I am for the opposite extreme.
I am for using some sense. Generally allowing, but putting reasonable limits. Like most countries do. (though one can argue about where exactly they draw the line, and the exact nature of the limits, in some cases)
Quote
Because if not that's the sort of assuming you keep throwing at me, and if yes then frankly you're a lunatic.

A lot of what you call "assuming" is actually either questions, simply what you've actually said …or not "assumptions" but "conclusions" based on what you're saying and what that means, its consequences, and what it leads to.
Quote
If they want to keep talking drugs to the point of addiction

*facepalm*
Seriously, just stop.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Quote
If you have some delusion running through your head where it is even remotely possible that everybody holds hands and sings kumbaya forever with nothing bad ever happening, forget about it.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Mentioning irrelevant things, isn't going to make you right.
Quote
That's rich, coming from you.

How so? Because I keep saying how shit everyone is?

That makes sense, but I've never claimed that I'm an expert on changing peoples behaviour.
Quote
It's also irrelevant, because if you are not willing to do a single thing to help your situation then I'm not willing to help either.

Okay, so you admit you're a psychopath, who doesn't give a shit about others, and whose attitude is abhorrent to phycologists, or anyone other relevant authority in these matters…
Quote
I can raise the valleys and lower the hills of it as much as is reasonably possible.

You have made it clear, that you won't. That you are unwilling. That you regard it as "pampering".
Quote
without government assistance on your own, one foot after the other.

…regardless of whether or not you're in a position of being able to do so, or in a situation where it is extremely difficult…
Yeah, you're a psycho.
Quote
It would be pampering if you do it for nothing

UBI is no strings attached.
By definition.
It is saying that people deserve, to be allowed to live.
Quote
but rather than simply handing it out the housing guarantee would take some at least slight effort on the part of the person involved.

You do realise that being homeless makes any effort to improve, getting a job, or getting a home, extremely difficult, even if you make every effort?
…and that it is far cheaper for a country, to simply give the homeless homes, rather than dealing with the costs of the people being homeless?
…and how UBI, without a housing guarantee, would lead to massively inflating the cost of housing?
Quote
I'd just more or less eliminate the need for politicians entirely

So you'd go with an eternal dictatorship?
Never allowing democracy.
Quote
As for the media, people would be made able to instantly see through any bullshit and know how worthwhile it is to trust a given journalist through any number of methods, no reporting partisan bs and hiding behind a shield, let's have some decent and accurate news for once.

How would you do that?
None of what you've proposed, including the omnipotent god (where the hell did that come from?), would achieve that.
Quote
Basically, the stats menu would have to be fine tuned to make the consequences (immediate and long term) of anything readily apparent.

How?

thread

» Amplify1 on November 24th, 2021, 9:01am

Quote
I guess the civility continues to drop…

You've been repeatedly accusing me of being psychotic since your second post, it was never there.

2, if you can't understand by now I guess you'll never understand. This world wouldn't work for everyone and not everybody would be worthy of it as they'd just be more interested in inflicting unhappiness on those around them for their own jollies or selfish gains. If you can't understand what there is to gain by not inviting those people in that the people who are invited would be happier in the absence of people who are a net negative, I can't help you.
Quote
Except for the ones who do it, AFTER being invited.

Wouldn't be invited in the first place, as I keep saying. If you ever would do that stuff after coming, you wouldn't get on the invite list. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? As for the children, if one tries they'd be stopped before they can do so and asked to leave on a one way trip to old earth.
This isn't complicated.
Quote
…and saying that you'd exile them to the OG Earth, isn't a solution. It's just moving the problem, to somewhere else. (or are you saying that the people in OG Earth don't matter? 'Cause that sounds like the attitude of a psychopath)

Is that the only word you know? They are not my problem, the leader of a country needs to be concerned about their own country first and foremost, the earth's fine we're living on it right now. The reason heaven is heaven is because the pearly gates exist. If you think that every single person has to be saved by you and ruled by you, then you have issues.

Trying to compare not wearing a seatbelt (a conscious choice with obvious consequences) to eating at a restaurant with bad food standards that ends up poisoning you is a terrible example. Also the statistics are there, whether you like it or not.

Quote
No they can't.
No one can.
Humans are not all knowing (or knowing all that humanity knows), nor are they capable of being so.

You keep forgetting the omnipotent god in the background here. All knowing. All possible pasts, presents, futures. For everything. At this point I'm not sure if you have low reading comprehension or selective memory or something.

Look, I'll explain a bit more about what I mean for that, the basis for my assumption as it's causing a bit of a logical disconnect here:
The only way for an omnipotent being to appear and rule the planet (as originally mentioned) would be by rubbing a magic lamp and getting three wishes, that sort of thing. Can't happen otherwise.
Since you're wishing for an omnipotent being in existence to rule billions of people here, then depending on how you go about the wish you can get more out of it at the same time for the same wish.
If you wish into existence say, somebody on the level of a MC from the last page of a cultivation novel who's reached the apex of the dao, has the infinity gauntlet and all the power stones, is in control of the heart of the universe or whatever and can effectively create any matter and life, then if persuaded to take up the mantle of ruler by the wish and follows your instructions until the heat death of the sun then not only do you have the omnipotent being but you additionally have somebody who can effectively make the source / dao of life or whatever instantly available to all as a cure-all to fix any and all ailments, but they can conjure up any materials so there's zero possibility of running out of food or any specific material type, along with infinitely renewable energy and knowing if a human would ever turn to murder or whatever else as well as if they could ever possibly be dissuaded from doing so (and how) before they're even born.
That's what I'm basing my claims etc on and handwaving away any problems along the lines of "Where will we get X?" because I can.

Quote
So you'd go with an eternal dictatorship?
Never allowing democracy.

Why would you even need democracy in its current form? It's not a dictatorship it's a new political system entirely. It entirely skips the need for voting for your preferred policy if you just get your ideal policy immediately. If you were to run a democracy infinitely and refine the result over and over until you had the perfect system that suited everybody living under it immaculately with no flaws, you would have the exact same result except it just took a ton of time and red tape to reach the conclusion.
All I'm doing is skipping the time and red tape it took to reach that conclusion, along with any unfortunate incidents or whatever that had to be learned from in the process.

As for the rest of your comment, honestly I can't even be bothered to read it as it's just constant attacks on and assumptions of my character, from the bits after that point I glanced at. It's all so tiresome.

thread

» Peep on November 24th, 2021, 9:20am

You are totally going to get a 1.5k to 2k word reply ><.
Jooles 3-4 short paragraphs got a 1k+ word diatribe reply.
I know a bunch of autistic people which are successful, but the way the guy talks about humans comes off like some alien being with autism, like there is some divine separation between him and the rest of us. Also, saying in one post how kids do nothing to *earn* inheritance from parents.., then in another saying how the world needs universal basic income.
That's why I never reply to him anymore, he will just claim how superior he is to everybody around him (megalomaniac). You know, cause professors totally spend 2-3 hours day writing manuscripts in manga forums.

User Posted Image

thread

» Amplify1 on November 24th, 2021, 2:18pm

Yeah, I'm really getting that same vibe from him. It's starting to look like he's either an elaborate troll or a delusional idiot at this point. At least it's making it abundantly clear how seriously I should be taking his opinion (read: not at all).

thread

» zarlan on November 25th, 2021, 6:27am

@Peep
Ah, you were that guy!
Damn, I need some kind of reminder, that tells me which people I've concluded that it is pointless/detrimental to listen/talk to… That way I'd have avoided making a reply to one of your comments. (also wouldn't have bothered reading it, in the first place)
It'd be nice if there was a feature in the forum, that did it for you.

thread

» zarlan on November 25th, 2021, 6:22am

Quote from Amplify1
You've been repeatedly accusing me of being psychotic since your second post

No I haven't. I was saying that certain things would be psychotic, if you really meant those things. It's in the last post, that I concluded that are a psycho.
Quote
if you can't understand by now

What do you mean "by now"? You've never even addressed the issue, much less explained it.
Quote
Wouldn't be invited in the first place, as I keep saying. If you ever would do that stuff after coming, you wouldn't get on the invite list.


I won't bother going any further.

Your idiocy clearly knows no bounds. You are incoherent, nonsensical, and brain dead. Also clearly a psycho, as well as dishonest, but in this case that's frankly secondary, and that's saying quite a lot, given how much I abhor dishonesty and an utter lack of care for others.
It is useless to talk to you, so I won't continue to bother.

thread

» Amplify1 on November 26th, 2021, 6:42am

To put it lightly, you're a joke. Not a funny one either.

Anybody looking for an honest debate would assume the strongest possible version of what the other person is saying and respond accordingly, you did that exactly zero times instead electing to assume the weakest possible version and misconstrue what I said endlessly while attacking me personally until I give up bothering. That attitude is never going to win friends or influence people, nobody agrees with you and we all find you to frankly be a fool.

It's weird, from the start I'd thought something was wrong, but after reading more of your posts I realise that you talk about the human race as if they're something you read about in a book once. It's bizarre. You have deep and severe psychological problems, and desperately need to seek out a psychiatrist.

thread

» MangaGhost on November 21st, 2021, 5:40pm

Nope. Managing and motivating people is very hard, and requires a level of interaction that my introverted nature is not well equipped to handle on a continuous basis. Better to work for change on a smaller scale in your community, neighborhood or family--that is of course if your goal is to improve things and not just rule the world.

thread

» orochijes on November 21st, 2021, 7:39pm

A good ruler should rule without ideology. Before you worry about what your propagandized/moralized mind tells you is "right" and "wrong", look to what has created great civilizations in the past. What did they all have in common? Copy what worked, even if you hate it. If you cannot simply do what actually works then your mind is too paracitized by ideology and pride to think clearly.

thread

» zarlan on November 22nd, 2021, 1:02pm

@orochijes
What you suggest, IS an ideology. It is very right-wing as it is a clear case of conservatism. A rejection of trying anything new, of progress. One cannot rule without ideology. Not in any coherent way, certainly.

thread

» vigorousjammer on November 22nd, 2021, 4:54am

Nah, I'd probably just fuck everything up, lmao. 🤣

thread

» Peep on November 22nd, 2021, 11:16am

>instantaneously, at no death or personal cost
Before that combined with the total control I thought you'd be immortals, but then I realized that it just meant nobody would die for you to be El Presidente del mundo. So that is going to be a thankless job and you're going to get assassinated pretty fast. Either in a riot or a planned out thing. John F Kennedy was pretty well liked and he got assassinated, Gandi (not civ 4 atomic bombing Gandi).
Think about it, there's no way you can please everybody, but you are responsible for everybody because you are the big cheese. Everything that goes wrong is going to be blamed on you.., you could scapegoat, but at the end of the day you are the one at the top.
Even if you delegate like mad for finance and stuff, you still need you head in the game, all the paperwork would see you having a breakdown or stomach ulcers pretty fast.

>If you could rule the world completely and totally
'Completely' and 'totally' combined kinda makes it sound like mind control, that'd be a boring world. There's plenty of people I don't agree with, but they make stuff interesting, keep them around. Living in some world where you can Code Geass everybody would be lame.

An AI leader would be overthrown, because who the hell is doing something because an AI told them to. Fracking toasters.
So to avoid being assassinated you'd have to be some shadow leader, so you have to trust your figurehead and agents not to eliminate you because why would they ultimately need you. The less contact you have with people the more you'd be apathetic to their woes
A one world leader means you won't understand other people's culture, religion, or general wat of doing things. You'd approach things with your own ethics and biases and likely piss people off. Would some manga reader in Ohio make a good mayor for Tehran?
The fact you'd need to delegate to advisors just means you are unneeded and it is better decentralized anyway.

The pollution/climate change problem would be expedited by one leader, sure. It is not something that you can force through though, you really need solutions to be ready and adopted on different levels. For instance, planes and ships (more than a few hour journeys), you can't really battery power those right now so you need new technology.

As for some people that are misanthropes here, then you are probably even worst a choice to be in power than some average Joe. I find it weird to hate humanity, but be part of it and to talk to other humans online, still a lot of people that describe themselves as misanthropes also suffer from some form of depression.
If you are feeling like humanity is horrible etc then it might be a good idea for you to take a break from your normal routine, go travel to other countries and have and have an active real life. Online access is often too easy and can trap you in an echo chamber of crap that reaffirm your opinions.

thread

» zarlan on November 22nd, 2021, 3:25pm

Quote from Peep
'Completely' and 'totally' combined kinda makes it sound like mind control, that'd be a boring world.

Not neccesarily.
Hell, even magic enslavement (as is seen in a lot of isekai-series, these days. A lot of authors/mangaka seem to see no problems with slavery… Or just see it as a problem in modern Japan …because it is illegal. Not because of any actual moral issues), where you force a person to obey your commands, leaves their mind completely uncontrolled (though they are forced to act, in accordance to your commands), but you don't have to go that far, to ensure that you are in complete control.
Of course, magic enslavement of innocents, wouldn't be that ethical …but if you do it on the current rulers/politicians… I'd fail to see how it would be any more than they deserve. (besides: they'd be free to do what they want, in their free time …as long as it doesn't break any of your rules. Also they'd no longer have all their undeserved riches or wages)
Quote
So to avoid being assassinated you'd have to be some shadow leader, so you have to trust your figurehead and agents not to eliminate you because why would they ultimately need you.

The figurehead can be someone who is under complete control. (like someone magically enslaved, as described above)
Preferably someone who has no will or emotions of their own.
Not a living being, but a mere doll, that is under your control.
An AI of sorts, I suppose, but in a human body. (a homunculus, I suppose)
You say no one would obey an AI, but…
If the AI has enough power
Or as has been suggested: A god/demi-god, who rules in accordance to your will. (ideally, as I suggested, having no will, emotions, desires, or judgement of their own, but instead using mine, and following the command of being the ruler …and, of course, not becoming corrupted by being in power, due to the fact that I wouldn't be in power and not affected by that …and as the entity uses my will/emotions/desires/judgement…)
Quote
The less contact you have with people the more you'd be apathetic to their woes

That is a huge baseless assumption.
Being less aware of their woes is one thing, but apathetic?
Also, if one uses a figurehead, and with oneself remaining where one is, how would that means less contact with the people?
Quote
A one world leader means you won't understand other people's culture, religion, or general wat of doing things.

That is not just baseless nonsense, it's frankly completely incoherent.
Also, why would one need to pay any attention to religion? Are you saying that one should allow for theocracies? One of the fundamental aspects one should establish, should be Freedom of (and from!) Religion, and Secularity!
No discrimination based on religion …which must include a ban on positive discrimination!
No special treatment/privileges, based on religion.
Quote
You'd approach things with your own ethics and biases and likely piss people off.

Ones own biases, sure. (though you should note the many various efforts I mention, that I would put in place, to try to control for them …and to look into and research further ways, to try to control for them)
…but that is true of anyone and everyone.
Including the current rulers/politicians, who are massively biased. Against the will of the people and/or science.

As for ethics…
I am constantly baffled, by how people think ethics is completely subjective, and something that is arbitrary or democratic.
How is it any different from, say, medicine? Or physics? Or sociology?
You'd never say "You'd approach things with your own medicine and biases" or "You'd approach things with your own physics and biases"
Quote
The fact you'd need to delegate to advisors just means you are unneeded and it is better decentralized anyway.

You do not delegate to advisors.
Advisors advise.
They never act or decide. If they do, then they are no longer advisors.
By definition.
…and you delegate to people, for them to act in accordance to your instructions/commands and under your supervision and power to change/overturn their decisions.
Quote
The pollution/climate change problem would be expedited by one leader, sure. It is not something that you can force through though

Of course you can!
Quote
you really need solutions to be ready and adopted on different levels.

They are ready.
Very ready. For instance: It is possible to turn all electricity production into 100% renewables (note: nuclear isn't renewable), right now. The one and only obstacle, is the complete lack of political will.
Quote
For instance, planes and ships (more than a few hour journeys), you can't really battery power those right now so you need new technology.

When it comes to ships I'd argue that people simply haven't made larger, more long journey, ships that run on 100% renewable/battery energy, but I don't see why it would be possible (perhaps less profitable, but if you throw that out the window…)

Planes for mid to long flights, using renewables/batteries, however is undeniably something that is not possible, with the current state of development.
…but why would fixing everything else, whilst a few holdouts remain, in the short term (while massive efforts are made to fix them), not be a massive improvement, over practically nothing getting fixed?
Why would that be so insufficient?

With the obvious implementation a very hefty carbon tax (which, naturally, would also make fossil fuel run ships/planes a lot more costly, and hence those transports and plane-tickets a lot more expensive), along with strict limitations on emissions (including restrictions on long distance planes/ships. Airmail being restricted to only things that are urgent etc), you'd get a lot of research&development done by many companies to focus strongly towards solving the issue
…along with the fact that one would put tons of public R&D (and one would, of course, make sure that public research would be severely beefed up, in general) towards the issue, and simply accept that mid-long distance (and only mid-long distance) ships and planes would continue to emit in the short-term.

…or you could simply put a 2-5 year deadline, on the use of fossil fuels. (or even just immediate)
After that, everything would have to use shorter distance planes/ships, until environmental longer distance ones are developed.
Quote
As for some people that are misanthropes here, then you are probably even worst a choice to be in power than some average Joe.

A sentiment that I fully understand
…if firmly disagree with.
You need a realist in charge.
Not someone who is a naive fool.

Also, you need someone who is committed to getting humans to become better and fulfil their potential. To no longer be despicable scum.
Not someone who thinks they're fine as they are.
Quote
I find it weird to hate humanity, but be part of it and to talk to other humans online

Humans are social creatures.
That is something you cannot get away from.
Also, being a misanthrope doesn't mean that you do not desire human contact and relations. Relationships. That you do not desire friendship and perhaps more.
Absolutely not.
I am a misanthrope, but I have never not had a very deep desire for human contact and relations.

Being a misanthrope just means that you cannot find anyone, who would be worthy of your trust or respect, much less friendship, much less love.

Also, just because one considers all humans to be dishonest, wilfuly ignorant, wilfully stupid, wilfully foolish, willfully immature, and wilfully immoral, doesn't meant that you think that humans are incapable of, don't have the potential of, being good and decent.
Indeed, it is the very fact that humans are all fully capable of being honest, sensible, decent people, that makes their choice to be the opposite, to be so despicable.
A cat, e.g., is quite stupid/foolish/immoral, compared to a human …but compared to what they are, to their limitations, they are not.
Hence, whilst I may despise humans, but I have no issues with animals.

A child is ignorant …because they are a child. They have yet to have the time/opportunity to fully develop their maturity, intellect, wisdom, morality. They are growing and developing, and are quick to change.
Their flaws can be blamed on their being children (and bad parenting! …and/or the parents not being able to do a proper job, due to outside factors. I.e. a lack of proper assistance from country), and can be changed.
Hence, I also don't despise children.

An adult, however…
They have chosen to be dishonest, immature, stupid, foolish, wilfully ignorant (everyone is ignorant about things, but… the level that people generally are at… The level of non-curiosity and avoidance of learning anything… the resistance and unwillingness to learn or grow…), immoral…
(and no child can ever hope to match the level of dishonesty, immaturity, stupidity, foolishness, wilful ignorance, and/or immorality, of an adult who has had a long time to further develop and strenghten those attributes. To call someone immature or stupid, by calling them, or likening them to, a child, is deeply wrong. It is slanderous towards children)
Also, whilst an adult can certainly change, it cannot be denied that they tend to be rather set in their ways, and resistant to change. Expecially when it comes to things that are more fundamental and firmly entrenched, such as the above-mentioned things.
Quote
still a lot of people that describe themselves as misanthropes also suffer from some form of depression.

Being a misanthrope, by itself, is a cause for massive depression.
Not only is the whole world shit, all of humanity crap …but also essentially having no friends or anything… (and need I remind you: Humans are social creatures)
Also very relevant:
User Posted Image
You cannot be a misanthrope, without it leading to your being seriously depressed.
Quote
If you are feeling like humanity is horrible etc then it might be a good idea for you to take a break from your normal routine, go travel to other countries and have and have an active real life.

How would that change anything?
How would that, in any way, show one that humanity isn't atrocious?
How would it, at all, in any way, even address the issue?
A brief travel to a place, with complete strangers, who I will have nowhere near enough time to get to know, much less be able to ascertain them to not be dishonest/immature/stupid/foolish/immoral…
Quote
Online access is often too easy and can trap you in an echo chamber of crap that reaffirm your opinions.

Given that it was my offline/IRL "friends", who truly made me see the truth about humanity…

Yeah, you really shouldn't spout ignorant uninformed nonsense, with great conviction and certainty, as if what you are saying is the truth, is fact, about subjects of which you clearly know absolutely nothing.

thread

» Jooles on November 22nd, 2021, 9:49pm

Quote
Yeah, you really shouldn't spout ignorant uninformed nonsense, with great conviction and certainty, as if what you are saying is the truth, is fact, about subjects of which you clearly know absolutely nothing.


Please take your own advice. Enough is enough [of your delusional bullshit].

The rhetoric you use when you talk about people/being a misanthrope is not some divine insight that you've gained because of your acute understanding of others; it's literally the same way incels delude themselves for protection. Everyone else. Everyone else. You're a social pariah for a reason and you need to deal with it. If you keep cowering under the blanket of "it's not me, it's them", you're never, and I do mean never ever ever ever ever fucking ever fulfill your desire for human companionship. If you can't see the good in us, how do you expect us to see the good in you? A cable needs to be connected in both ends, sport.

Go to a shrink and/or read some psychology. Apply what you learn. It's a process.

Find people that are mentally healthy to be around, and to use as models for growth.
Mark Manson is a good start. He's an acclaimed author and has a website and youtube. He knows what he's talking about, and this whole schtick your brain is doing to you is one of his fortes.

Work out. I'm only guessing, but the way your brain is wired doesn't sound like someone that exercises (keeps your mind from going insane in the membrane).

But what do I know. I'm not fit to be ruler of the world, and you are. Then again, you were heavily into the idea of taking advice from those that had their own areas of expertise. This is mine. So, gonna heed? Or fall back on your words the moment you need to? It's okay if you do, all the other cool leaders do it too.

thread

» zarlan on November 24th, 2021, 12:34am

Quote from Jooles
Please take your own advice. Enough is enough [of your delusional bullshit].


Ceiye talked about this discussion being relatively civil, to my amusement and agreement …but straight after that…

You call it delusional, despite the fact that you cannot point to a single flaw in what I said, a single argument or claim of mine, that is wrong, or defence for the things I've argued against.

In other words: You are making a completely baseless accusation.
What you are uttering, is no more than cheap slander
…and you're too dishonest and cowardly, to actually back up, or defend your words or positions, and instead stoop to lazy and dishonest tactics.
Quote
The rhetoric you use when you talk about people/being a misanthrope is not some divine insight that you've gained because of your acute understanding of others; it's literally the same way incels delude themselves for protection. Everyone else. Everyone else. You're a social pariah for a reason and you need to deal with it.

That comment could possibly make some sense, IF it weren't for the clear and undeniable fact, that no one has ever even attempted to explain what the reason(s) would be, for how I am treated, what exactly it is that I've done wrong, or how/why it is wrong.
As no one ever bothers to do so, much less make any arguments that aren't riddled with holes (obvious fallacies, clearly erroneous "facts" and premisses…), there is no way in which I could possibly believe that the fault lies with me.

By no means do I claim to be perfect, or that I am always right.
On the contrary, if and when someone can properly demonstrate to me (or even if they, in some other way, lead me to realise) that I am wrong about something, even in cases where being wrong would be very embarrassing and/or uncomfortable (and even if the person who pointed it out, is an idiot and/or arsehole …as has been the case, on occasion), I invariably accept and acknowledge it, and thank the person who lead me to realise it.
For they have, whoever they are and whatever their motives, not only taught me something but also, far more importantly, rid me of a misconception.
They have made me more right, less wrong, more knowledgeable, and a better person, and for that, I should express my gratitude.

As I have done.
Many times.

…and practically no one else ever does!
It is very rare, for people other than me, to have the humility or lack of arrogance, to ever admit to being wrong (except maybe about something very minor), much less thank the person who pointed it out.
Most people have too fragile an overblown ego, to allow for that.
Quote
If you keep cowering under the blanket of "it's not me, it's them", you're never, and I do mean never ever ever ever ever fucking ever fulfill your desire for human companionship.

Oh really?
Well then, enlighten me:
What about my behaviour is wrong?
How and why is it wrong?
…and what claims have I made here, that were wrong, and how/why are they wrong?
Will you answer?
I am always open to honest and reasonable criticism.
Preferably civil, but I don't mind if it is frankly vile, as long as there is proper substance along with the vulgarity. (dishonesty and/or irrationality, however…)

…or are you just spouting all this hate, because you know that you have no valid or sensible answers, to what I have said?
Because you simply cannot give any possible retort, in an honest debate, making you so frustrated and angry (because you ego cannot accept "defeat" [debate/discussion should never be seen as winning or losing, but as refining/challenging ones understanding and getting closer to the truth], cannot accept that you may be wrong) that you resort to ad hominem attacks?
…because that is, frankly, nothing more than an admission of fault, when you think about it.
Quote
Go to a shrink and/or read some psychology. Apply what you learn. It's a process.

HAH!
Don't try to teach a grandma how to suck eggs.
Quote
Find people that are mentally healthy to be around

Find me some, and I'll gladly do so.
If there are any.
Quote
Mark Manson is a good start. He's an acclaimed author and has a website and youtube.

I don't know him, and nor do you.
How do I know that he isn't dishonest, arrogant, immature, stupid, foolish, immoral etc?
Still, that doesn't necessarily mean he can't be a good source for psychology info, so I looked him up, and…

Not a single mention of any praise from proper reliable experts, nor that he has any relevant degrees or credentials, nor that he's published anything that's been peer-reviewed.
He does mention that the stuff he presents, is taken from evidence based research, sure (and an enthusiastic amateur, who properly presents the science, can still be good and reliable), but given how what he presents, in his "about" page is all tons mentions of him being a bestselling author, and the various magazines and news programs he's been on and that kind of stuff…
Yeah…
No.
He sounds very fishy. Very BS.
Much like 99.9% of all "self-help" guys/books.
Quote
Work out. I'm only guessing, but the way your brain is wired doesn't sound like someone that exercises (keeps your mind from going insane in the membrane).

Though exercise (which everyone should do, regularly) has great positive effects on both physical and mental health, and ones emotions…
That presumption is clearly invalid.
A person can be far more miserable and cynical than me, whilst doing regular exercise or as happy and optimistic as can be, whilst being a couch potato.
Exercise absolutely has an effect …but it is far from determinative.
Quote
But what do I know. I'm not fit to be ruler of the world, and you are.


I'm gonna assume that you made a slight mistake here. Given the phrasing and context, I find it rather unlikely that you meant to say that I am fit to rule the world.
(though I wouldn't call you a hypocrite, for saying so despite all your criticisms. It is possible to say that someone is severely flawed in many ways, but still more fit to perform a certain task than many a person without those flaws …depending on the flaws/task/severity in question)
Quote
Then again, you were heavily into the idea of taking advice from those that had their own areas of expertise. This is mine. So, gonna heed?

You didn't present advice, you just presented bile and disagreement.

Well okay, technically you suggested:
* I consult/learn about psychology
…as if I'm not already doing that, and have a better understanding of it, than anyone in this thread. Well, I've never seen an actual psychologist, sure, but that's certainly not for lack of trying… Not for my misanthropy, mind you, but my depression and irregular sleep–wake rhythm disorder. I've often gotten sent to (severely incompetent) psychiatrists …even though that's kinda like sending someone with a urinary infection, to a dentist.
* that I exercise
…based on an completely invalid, irrelevant, and baseless presumption (well sure, it is something everyone should absolutely do, regardless, but…), as well as being something that you don't often get people to do, just by telling/convincing them that it's a good idea. Getting people to be convinced that they should do a certain thing, is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition, for getting them to start doing it. That's not how humans function.
* … I suppose you might claim that, that first sentence is advice? …but it's a clear and obvious, baseless lie. As if I'd ever do anything, that I condemn others for. Unlike… well everyone but me (at least, that is what my experience tells me), I am not a hypocrite.

So…
You haven't really given any advice that is significant and relevant.
You've mainly just spouted hate and anger.
Not exactly what I'd call "constructive".

thread

» Ceiye on November 22nd, 2021, 5:11pm

Are uh. Some of y'all alright? I'm genuinely concerned about how much investment people are putting into this hypothetical and the tangents they're going on. That being said, it's also strangely way more civil than usual, so you know what, if this is your outlet, go for it. Chase your bliss

As for my answer, I think it's more fun more indirectly involved instead. Not in like a secret society Illuminati kind of way, but like in a gag manga where the most popular kid in school who's like "woe is me, it is raining and I didn't bring my umbrella today." And then suddenly everyone rushes to give them various means of coverage, each more ridiculous and elaborate than the last. What started with borrowing umbrellas escalates plans of building a hallway that extends from the school front to their home, which escalates even further into solving global warming so that off season rainstorms are no longer an issue. But then they step outside and the clouds somehow only part for them. A Teruhashi, if you will. Nothing will get done. Things would probably get worse. It would be hilarious though. I want to express mild inconvenience about waiting in traffic and then a minute later city planning and infrastructure is fixed forever (along with probably a ten car pileup in the meantime)

thread

» Sugarshark on November 23rd, 2021, 4:50pm

I'd do it just to spank Russia & China

thread

» jonytep on November 24th, 2021, 7:11am

Wow, nice effort in the posting, people. Too Long, Didn't Read, anyway.

I wouldn't rule the world completely and totally, no. No one would be able to make the world a "better place" because you can change the rules, but you can't change the people. And the problem in the world is the people. It's not something a single human being can change, no matter how much authority he/she has.

thread

» VawX on November 25th, 2021, 1:26am

If it's only for several days or a week then everything forgotten I might want to do it mmm...
But for prolonged amount of time, no, I'm too lazy to care about the world mmm...

thread