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.

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.

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"

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!

@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.

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.

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

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

________________
Visit my scanning blog:

Jammin' Scans

::End of Transmission::

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.

Last edited by Amplify1 at 10:45 am, Nov 22 2021

>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.

@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.

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.

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.


Absolutely!

…
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

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...

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:
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.

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.

Last edited by Amplify1 at 2:33 pm, Nov 22 2021

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)

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…)

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?

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.

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"

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.

Of course you can!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.