Eliminate all monotheistic religions.
That’s not a small thing.
Oh, buddy… The only reason that Hindu nationalism isn’t a bigger problem is because they’re mostly in India. And it’s not like the Romans weren’t expansionist and quite efficient at murdering their neighbors without having a single god. Or, for that matter, the Vikings.
Who said it would eliminate all wars? Of course it would not. But I think that monotheistic religions throughout history were one of the most divisive factors among people that otherwise would get along just fine.
I think that religion is the reason that’s often used to mask simpler motives; people want other people’s stuff–their land, their wealth, their resources–without having to expend work to get it themselves. Or perhaps they can’t get what they want/need without taking it from their neighbors. For instance, Japan is a very small country, and seriously lacks natural resources; in order to compete internationally, they needed to become an expansionist empire in the late 1800s/early 1900s, which led to them bombing Pearl Harbor in order to attempt to stop our imperial ambitions in the Pacific. Sure, Japan made claims about the emperor being divine, but it was fundamentally about resources.
Of course you can find examples of conflicts not motivated by religion. But do you think that for example Balkans would be such a shit show if all the nations involved had the same religion? They have the same ethnicity and similar language. What’s the divisive factor there? The rest of the Soviet Union managed to transition peacefully. Why is that? And what about the crusades? Was the motivation really the land? Or simply religion? What about missionaries and all the harm they have caused? Did any polytheistic religion had missionaries? I don’t think so.
And before you start listing other wars and crimes not motivated by religion I’m obviously not saying that without monotheism the world would be perfect. I’m just saying it would be better.
But I think that monotheistic religions throughout history were one of the most divisive factors among people that otherwise would get along just fine.
Yes, I believe this is the part that got you oh buddy’d. People make religions, they are a reflection in the mirror. Trying to solve the history of humanity by excising monotheism is like trying to convince your reflection to stop scowling at you
So you don’t think religion often drives a wedge between groups of people that otherwise would live together without issues? Well, I disagree. And of course there are other reasons for people to hate one another but ‘my made up guy in the sky is better than your made up guy in the sky’ is the dumbest one.
So you don’t think religion often drives a wedge between groups of people that otherwise would live together without issues?
Is that what I said? Don’t strawman me.
Let me put it this way instead: given any system of self-replicating information, be it DNA or gospel, you will observe convergent evolution. If the environment offers a productive niche, then it’s only a matter of time before that niche gets exploited. Monotheism isn’t a tragic freak accident – it’s an inevitable response to an unexploited niche. Wishing it away is pointless because then something nearly identical would spring up to replace it. If one wishes to alter the reflection (i.e.: culture), then they must direct their focus upon the subject therein (i.e.: human society)
A deadly virus that kills assholes
I get your intent… I think, but taken literally that’s going to cause some issues. A virus that causes necrotic butt holes… Hmmm.
Hahaha i forgot genies are tricky that would be a shitastrophe.
Technically that’s just making the hole bigger. It’d have to seal them shut.
Simple. True empathy for everyone. Literally feeling what others feel
So every time someone stubs their toe, every other human would feel the pain? Everyone would be completely overwhelmed by all kinds of feelings all the time.
Apparently, the word empathy isn’t as well understood as I thought.
Under typical usage, it refers to emotions, not full sensory input. Think Deanna Troi from star trek.
I’ve never actually heard/seen it used to refer to sensory input.
And, yes, even if it’s “only” emotions that are picked up, it would be distracting. This would radically change human society. That’s the entire point of the question in the post. It would be even more of a change with full sensory input though.
Imagine a world where that guy that’s creeping along on the highway isn’t just making people angry, because everyone that gets close knows that he’s grieving so hard he can barely function. You feel that grief yourself. Or, if you prefer your interpretation of empathy, you can feel his bowels cramping and realize that he’s going slow because he’s looking for an exit.
Now, this doesn’t automatically mean that everyone is going to act with kindness. But it does mean that none of us could ever again just dismiss someone else’s state of being. We would know that the other person is a feeling being and that makes being cruel an entirely different proposition. Whe we would feel, just like it were our own pain, what our actions cause, it’s gong to make people slow down and think before acting.
If people are only able to respond in a socially appropriate manner as a result of literally feeling others’ feelings, doesn’t that mean they still only care about others to the extent that it affects them? Wouldn’t such a response still be rooted in self-centeredness?
Wouldn’t actual selflessness mean accommodating someone else’s emotional state specifically when you don’t/can’t identify with them? (Maybe more like sympathy than empathy?)
Sure, but the net effect is still the same. Giving everyone true empathy wouldn’t eliminate psychopaths and sadists entirely, I’m sure. But for the average person, that barrier to spite and cruelty would be enough.
“If by allow you mean force…”
The invention of a small easily producible power source that never runs out and has enough power to power vehicles/planes/vessels of all kinds.
maybe not easily producible, but RTGs almost fit the bill
RTG enters the chat.
@Weirdbeardgame Make Moringa taste good.
End speciesism
Social media never happened. It will not happen.
That whole business of brainwashing, of lowest common denominator, of selling yourself for likes - scourge of our times.
That’s such a myopic view, it’s given everyone the chance to speak and learn from each other which has resulted in a lot of shared understanding and growth.
You just want to sweep all the social problems back under the rug simply because you don’t like seeing them.
I wonder if you’d carve out an exception for yourself, like you’re using social media now - are you banning this conversation too?
Inherent self interest disappears. People work for the greater good.
would need to be more specific, plenty of evil organisations believe they are working for the greater good (ISIS, Nazis etc)
Psychologically that would be a desaster. People would wear themselves out in an instant, and in 6 months top we’d have a world population suffering from clinical depression.
Every one gets a strong moral compass that they can’t ignore.
Sure we won’t all have the same morals but I believe that most bad things in the world happen because people ignore morals and act selfish and only a small part of our issues stem from actual moral differences.
Edit: Seems I am much more optimistic than I thought.
Rates of religiously based terrorism would go through the roof. The problem is that people that, e.g., bomb abortion clinics believe that they are doing the morally correct thing, because it’s better to murder a few people than to allow those people to “murder” thousands of innocent “babies”. Likewise, you’d suddenly have people that are casually racist now immediately turn to full-on race war shit, because if you believe that nonwhite people are causing harm to the “white race” simply by existing, and you have a moral compass that you can’t ignore, then the moral thing to do is to prevent that harm by killing the people committing the harm, esp. when you believe that they’re irredeemable by virtue of genetics.
You could argue that “moral compass” means more than just a strong sense of right/wrong. Presumably, most people have that, even if we don’t describe it as such. I think OP intended something more like a “strong sense of harmony” wherein everyone has a shared common understanding of some greater good and therefore work towards it with common cause.
It’s still a fairly naive notion, but for an entirely different reason. Rather than self-righteous chaos, such a wish would lead to a sort of moral tyranny imposed by one single person’s preconceptions of what constitutes a moral life.
There’s a ton of really shitty people with strong moral compasses they can’t ignore. Most of them follow faiths ending in ity, ism, or lim
Depends what you mean by moral compass. I don’t think anyone’s conscious tells them “man, we really shouldn’t be mixing these textiles”. They might feel guilty for breaking rules they want to follow, but that’s it.
This is a horror movie I’ve pitched.
Dude according to some people not straight cisgender people wouldn’t have rights and would be killed
A black hole about 2cm across filled entirely with protons.
deleted by creator
Well, a black hole 2cm in diameter is basically the mass of the Earth, and protons are positive. Gravity would attract the two, so the black hole would impact the earth. Criteria are fulfilled. It’s the biggest positive impact.
deleted by creator
The positive charge would remain though
deleted by creator
Yup, there’s a theorem (“no-hair theorem”) that the only information about a black hole which does influence the universe is its mass, spin, and electric charge.
deleted by creator
You may be right, but I have yet to have evidence to the contrary.
People can no longer share or post something on social media unless it is objectively true.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
In my opinion, this i̴s̸ ̷n̴o̷t̷ ̷a̸ ̸g̸o̵o̷d̵ ̸i̴d̵e̷a̴,̷ ̵b̸̟̂e̸̯͠c̷̞̕à̷͖u̷̼͝s̷̜̀e̵͖̾ ̷̲͗t̸͖͊h̵͔̿ē̷͉r̴̲͆e̸̥̚’̵̠͊s̴̰̿ ̶͔̇p̶̰̍l̷͍͆e̵̗͊ǹ̷̻t̶̫̾y̷̞̍ ̸̗̑ȏ̶̻͓̯̇̆f̴̯͋ ̷̪̀͝t̷̢̡̐̂h̴̖͛̂i̴̮̱̳̓̀̾ņ̷͔̯͝g̸̗͂s̴̢̀̑͜ͅ ̴͍̝̀͑̾ṅ̶͇́ǫ̷̐̽t̴̥͙̋͂ ̷̲̥̕s̵͖̞͓̑͝͠ṭ̵̋̚r̸͖͆i̸̪̺͆͗c̵͓̼͛t̴̡̯̄͘l̶͕̏̈́̕y̴̤̣͈̅ ̷̛̜̗̻̈́v̶͔̺͐͑̍e̵̛͉̮r̷͖͓̉ỉ̷͈́f̸̟̓̕i̴̧̯͎͒̅͒a̶̖͑̈́b̴̡̧̈́̿͠l̴̜̿e̵̼̻͇͝ ̴͚̈́̅t̷̘͕̺͋͂̒h̸̳͔̑ȃ̶̹̗͔́t̴̡̰̺̋ ̸̫͜͝͝ ̶̖̀ ̷̣̬͑̂̐ ̴͇̄̔͝ ̴̟̃̀͜ ̶̽̿ͅ ̴̠̿s̵̼͚̖͆̎̉t̷̳̝̜̅̾ĩ̴̟̈̍l̵̫̗̼̈́́l̶̥̪̀ ̶̧̪̜̅̍n̸͖͊͆̕ė̴̹͔̭̇̚ḛ̷̊d̵̛̄͘ͅ ̶̡̘̱͝s̸̰͆̍̀a̶̩̻̐ẏ̵̳͉̦ḯ̸̞̻͒ṉ̷̏ͅg̵̩͓̈́ ̴͍͚̏ ̴̭̘͐̂ ̵͙̤̻͐̋̊ ̶͉͌ ̴̬̈ ̸̡̄ ̴̗̼̌ ̶͕̐ ̸̪̄ ̵̢̿̏ ̴͕͉̗̀ ̸̠͋́͝ ̴̺͈͛͐͐ ̷͓̙͑͋͒ä̸͖̝͇́n̴̛̹̰̏d̸͍̗̓͋ ̷̯̫́ ̸͚̀ ̶̱̽̃̔ ̷̖̣̈́͂ ̶̧̉̇̾ ̷̰̊̂͊ ̵̧̤̊ͅ ̶̞̮͂ ̴̨̑̿ ̴̜͛̋̐ ̵͉̆ ̶̼̫̌ ̶͍̥͊̎ ̷̭̃ ̵̙̪͎̔̍ ̸̢̧̇͜ ̷̲̰̃̐ ̶͙̐ ̴̞͊̉ͅ ̷̭̟͔̏̉̃ ̸̨̱͂͝ ̶̫͈̐̔͝ ̷̧̹̊̈̈́ ̶̥̠̜́ ̷̰͍͌͂͝ ̸̹̗̀ ̶͎̱͉͗ ̷̣̚ ̶̛̤̱̈́̃ ̷̰̪̗͂̐͌ ̷͓̝̬͗̎ ̴̨̦͈̆̊̃ ̷̡̓͐̕ ̸̰̍̕ ̵̗̞̥̓ ̸ ̸͕͆ ̴͒ͅ ̸͙͌ ̸̢͛ ̷̙͝ ̴̗̈́ ̵͚̿ ̵̯̓ ̶͎̐ ̵̘̇ ̵͂͜ ̷̧̃ ̵̫̿ ̵͔̌ ̵͔̌ ̷̟͗ ̸̣̆ ̴̖̾ ̶̤͠ ̷̲̒ ̷̱̑ ̸̟͗ ̸͇̐ ̴ ̴͎͋ ̸̪̍ ̶̜̽ ̶̪̂ ̸͇̋ ̵̹̎ ̶̡̊ ̴ ̴ ̸ ̶ ̷ ̶ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̸ ̵ ̷ ̷ ̸ ̴ ̵ ̴ ̵ ̷ ̵ ̶ ̸ ̷ ̸ ̷ ̴ ̵ ̸ ̵
So would this allow you to check if something is true?
Well, the foundations of reality might make that a bit difficult when it’s a topic that’s indeterminate, as truth could end up being relative.
But yes, in our fictional genie reality, you could just try posting everything and then what goes through is objectively true.
Compassion
Normalise the phrase: "I don’t agree with your opinion and that’s fine"
To take a human life, no matter how, you sacrifice your own life as well.
The end of the medical profession as we know it.
Take is not the same as lose
Genies have a reputation for having the least charitable and most obtuse interpretation of rules…
That would end war pretty effectively.
Bring back the concept of shame.
cries in has lots of it
Bring back? It never left me! Can you tell the shame-voice in my head that it’s been left behind and all the other shame has left already?
You should tell the US Congress about it.
