It calls for a bit of strategic thinking that may come off as reckless and nilhistic but logically sound. * If iterations of will in the end come out "correct"

It calls for a bit of strategic thinking that may come off as reckless and nilhistic but logically sound. * If iterations of will in the end come out "correct" then speeding it up will help progress in process up until a limit. * Conversely if we cannot come across the "correct" answer eventually as a species we were already doomed and it isn't like we are making matters worse. (Putting aside the definitional issues of technically already being doomed in an entropic universe.) I stick to binary outcomes here by design due to "optimal" being not only non-computable but non-definable. There is a popular argument about "bad information traveling faster than good" but it doesn't quite convince me. The speed may also be its own undoing via overexposure undermining its credibility. There is a notable historic pattern seen in England, Boston, Ireland of theocrats getting in charge and so taxing everybody's patience they cause declines in religiousity athiests could only dream of. Respectively Cromwell and the puritans being so bad people went back to nobility, "Banned in Boston" censorship, and theocratic abuses including the Magdalyne Laundries.