Now there is only the "small" problem of constituting a dictatorship that is selfless, humanistic, and relentlessly benevolent. If you say that, in the face of

Now there is only the "small" problem of constituting a dictatorship that is selfless, humanistic, and relentlessly benevolent. If you say that, in the face of existential threats such as climate change we don't need it to have these properties, I'll argue that such a construct will likely not provide any survival benefits or even modest improvements over the status quo. There is ample precedent that all dictatorships pretty much exist(ed) only to further the status of the ruling elite, and to the degree they differ(ed) from each other at all, it was mostly only a difference in the flavor and scope of the atrocities they committed. I get the desire for a single unified initiative that drags us out of this mess, even against our wills. But no entity capable of doing that exists. And the bigger ethical question is indeed whether it should exist to begin with. If we can't solve these relatively simple problems of ensuring our survival and provide a reasonably fulfilling existence for our fellow humans, why does our species deserve to exist?