3 ms·
How much more it could have advanced for the masses under a more optimum system though, is unknown. Take war for example: is the amount of war we wage actually
by mistermann 5y ago
How much more it could have advanced for the masses under a more optimum system though, is unknown. Take war for example: is the amount of war we wage actually necessary? Is there no better way to do things than we currently do, across all domains?
If you think of our world as Sim Earth, what would 2021 look like under near perfect play, how far are we off from that, and for what reasons? One reason might be that we don't seem to think and talk about ideas like this very much, or perhaps not in a skillful enough manner.
- Zababa 5y agoWhat is even a perfect play? Do you think all people on Earth would agree with your notion of a perfect play? If not, which opinions are you willing to sacrifice and why?
- mistermann 5y agoI believe that perfect play is approximately that which maximizes aggregate happiness for all of humanity. Opinions will vary of course, because true optimality is unknowable to mere mortals, and how to get there, optimally or not, is probably even more difficult to discern. That said, it is not a binary - I think it's well within our theoretical ability to realize that some things (war, extreme inequality, etc) are sub-optimal, and work to minimize such things over time. I say theoretical because one thing I have noticed is that when one suggests optimistic, common sense ideas of how to improve the world, most people usually disagree/downvote. To me, this unrealized innate default behavior is one of the many things that holds humanity back from achieving greater things. See what I mean? :)