Quote from Peep
'Completely' and 'totally' combined kinda makes it sound like mind control, that'd be a boring world.
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)
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…)
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?
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
No special treatment/privileges, based on religion.
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"
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.
They never act or decide. If they do, then they are no longer advisors.
…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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
You cannot be a misanthrope, without it leading to your being seriously depressed.
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…
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.