I don’t know why people keep downvoting my posts. I agree that they could be better, but I don’t think my post’s karma accurately reflects their worth. I am biased, however.
Wes Reisen
Karma: −88
I will note that most change of this scale doesn’t arise from methods like this. This could aide in giving a rough sense of how likely this is to work. Here’s some examples of things like this working:
Victor Zhdanov’s work single-handed (And successfuly!) lobbying the WHO to eradicate smallpox. (https://youtu.be/ll9myMeFU3g, starting at the 8:00 mark)
Eleanor Roosevelt (FDR’s wife) played a massive role in the creation of the UN. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/bonavero-institute-human-rights/eleanor-roosevelt-and-universal-declaration-human
and more
And here are some examples of efforts that have required broader support:
Climate change prevention
The abolition of slavery
Most or all movements pertaining to increasing equality
Nearly every election
The protection of the ozone layer
many if not most revolutions throughout history
and more
(Note: this was all off the top of my head.)
Hey, did y’all consider the possibility of a conscious being’s experiences being influenced by:
the experiences of other conscious beings
The decisions of other conscious beings
Things in a very different space than the one said being is in Other dimensions? (For the sake of the hypothetical, imagine there’s some particle in front of you. It’s special in that it doesn’t interact with any any other types of particles. Therefore, you think that such particles are, for all practical purposes, from a different definition.
And have we thought about if a conscious person can use their free will to alter those thing?
If someone is both experiencing and deciding on matters from a different dimension, can’t it be argued that they are sort of living in multiple dimensions?
Thanks!
https://youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8 a being can have multiple conciousnesses, on average.
There is sort of precedent for this: science used to be much more argumentative, and now, most of science is done in very intelligent ways, aimed at getting to the RIGHT answer, and not “their answer”. This led to many, if not most or all, scientific problems being solved*.
In addition, if you aim to be a powerful scientist, fighting for “your answer” makes it much harder than it is if you were fighting for the RIGHT answer. Similarly, if this project worked well, it would be much harder to gain power if you fought for “your values” than if you fought for the RIGHT values!
it seems boggling at first glance that this would work, but in summary, it would work like this: Sometimes, in an argument, one or more sides doesn’t care about reaching the RIGHT conclusion, they just care about it reaching a conclusion they approve of. This is often the difficulty with arguments.
However, when everyone is brought to the table and wants to reach the RIGHT conclusion, you find that the correct/RIGHT conclusion (seemingly) is arrived at much more often, is arrived at much faster, and as a bonus, the debate is much more respectful!
This project would basically bring world leaders to the table, where they would look for the RIGHT conclusion to major problems, which should lead to the correct/RIGHT conclusion (seemingly) is arrived at much more often, is arrived at much faster, and as a bonus, the debate is much more respectful!
Message to any world leaders who aren’t willing to change their values: If you can successfully stop this from happening if you tried, then it wouldn’t work, so there’s no point in trying to stop me. It would be comparable to voting in an election determined by people’s opinions, not by how they voted (the equivalent of writing on a random piece of paper, “I vote like so: __”).
I say this because in any scenario where, even assuming every world leader who has completely unwavering moral values tried really hard to stop our program AND cooperated with one another, IF such an effort would potentially be successful, then our program would fail.
To expand on that: If your efforts make the difference between our program succeeding and failing or otherwise affecting its success, we would have a huge incentive to ensure that this program isn’t bad for you. This is because, if [you think it would be better for [your values] to try and prevent any given facet/part of our program], you would logically do so, and we don’t want that, so we will make sure [You are happy with each of those facets of the program].
Basically, you don’t need to stop our program. The threat that you might try to stop our program has the same effect.
If we can help you in a way that doesn’t come at a cost to us (e.g., reschedule meetings so the time of the meetings work better for you), we will!
As an analogy, if you had the option to get rid of a country, then you don’t have to worry about them being bad for you, because they have a massive incentive to be good for you: not getting destroyed.
Here’s another analogy: Someone is making you food. You don’t have to spend thousands of dollars to ensure that the person makes good food since you can simply throw the food away if the food does not taste good, and the person making the food already has a massive incentive to make food that tastes good to you: not getting the food thrown out.
All of this goes without saying, but saying it makes it clear.
Whoops! Looks like it might take longer!
Could you please do an update, if convenient enough for it to be worth it?
I will also note that the possibility of more morally misaligned actors might use the information that world leaders now agree on X moral values to their advantage, in order to do bad things. Perhaps this force is counteracted by more morally aligned people using such information to do good things!
Exact information on this is dependent on data on phycology and whatnot. If you know about that stuff, please let me know or add it here.
Also, if world leaders spend a lot of time surrounded by a particular culture (e.g., a month at some event), they might carry some of that culture over when they get back home, but also they re-assimilate into their home culture.
And a good culture (say, in the UN) can also help with this project’s success. A bad one can result in this project being harder.
If this worked, it would probably result in a major culture shift throughout most major institutions, which would help keep the program from falling apart, and would help incorporate new members.
NOTICE: there’s a very similar court case also happening, this one in Colerado:
Ground News—Should elephants have the same rights as people? A Colorado court may decide
Maybe this would start its rollout on the most major world leaders first? And then, over time, more and more people get added to the program once we’re ready for them
Supposedly, a more morally aligned global order might try to make itself more morally aligned. We only need this to work enough for it to sort itself out.
Maybe replacing the keys to power?
Another reason world leaders might support this is that they think the program would have a good result (namely by them thinking that their current goals would be the goals that would be landed on, namely because they might think their goals are right and that the program would land on the right goals or goals close to the right ones), and that that result would become even better with their participation.