| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For everyone who says killing all the evil people and making them good are equally bad, what would you suggest instead? You could just do nothing but that would defeat the purpose of having the gauntlet and that seems like it would be the worst choice to me (imagine someone who sees someone getting murdered, and despite being easily able to stop it just stands there and does nothing. What would you think of such a person?)
One proposed idea is eliminating all pain (I disagree with this; see below) and death (I don't disagree with this).
I disagree with the former only insomuch as I am, by will of others, verboten from changing the nature of people for the nebulous concept of "free will" - for unless people experience pain, they can, fundamentally, never have empathy for others, and empathy, by definition, is a major source of morality in virtually every system (though it is not the only such source, and definitively isn't the source of ethics).
But the basic idea of eliminating pain and death is good, and a solid start - and, it negates most "evil" that people could and would do to each other, by default, leaving only the (still major) crime of affliction (i.e. trampling over/negating free will; see AA's highly accurate rebuttal on free will, above, however).
As an example of acknowledging and allowing free will while fundamentally negating (most) affliction, and not granting instant infinity to all, your proposed "eliminate all evil people" is actually entirely valid - however, to put the question from peoples' minds, insomuch as is possible (and it is not, because we're kind of jerks), I'd suggest using the gauntlet to create a definition that excluded most people from elimination (as that would, itself, be evil and cause too much suffering), but also be a universal non-personal version of "evil" (i.e. explicitly not relying on my own, limited and biased notions), with the expectation that anyone who can (and would) reform and/or cease to be evil under the new paradigm was given the chance to do so instead of elimination. Also, making said elimination both painless and instant.
Now, don't be fooled - the above suggestion is by no means, "not evil," to those who are abhorred by the idea of a single individual holding all this power (because they have been deeply ingrained in the idea that power corrupts and/or individual morality is fundamentally flawed), and even if there was a universal system of morality built by a non-biased third party with access to absolute and infinite knowledge and wisdom, it would broadly be distrusted because, "strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for government" - an idea that carries over into literally any source of "absolute" statements (no matter how concrete or convincing that source would have to be). So, in that context, a single individual - no matter where that person derives their morality from - would never be trusted and would automatically be labeled evil.
If you're less into the preservation of free will - or you're at least okay with altering the fundamental elements of individuals - you can, absolutely, get away with not killing everyone. The problem is that people have also been deeply ingrained with the sense that "mind control" is fundamentally horrifying because of the "painted smile" effect, or (they presume) I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream: that is, though it would "force" us to be happy, we wouldn't be happy, not really - instead, we'd be "happy" only on the outside, with a deep-seated body-horror-type scenario where our inner minds and/or souls would be screaming in horror and/or disgust/etc. at <things>, while our body (even surface-level emotions) would be "happy" - maybe even biologically.
As an example of how that might work out in horror, imagine an A.I. tasked with "maximizing human happiness." First thing it does is eliminate every person on earth, then vat-grows human brain tissue and whatever organs are associated with making our feel-good brain dope, mass produce that on a vast scale, and put that in minimal-requirement systems eternally stimulating the "happy places" in human brains (the only part of humans that still exists) in the widest field possible. Would that make any of us happy? No. 1) we'd be dead, 2) it's a horrible and pointless future with a super-intelligent A.I. doing a needless task that accomplishes nothing of what we wanted when asking for the thing.
So the base idea is to look at what we'd want in a society. And here is the problem: we've been treating humanity as a monolith this whole time, when, in reality, while there are clear and overwhelming trends, these trends are created from a host of individuals with very different ideas about literally everything - even among people that speak the same language, there are vast gulfs that entirely prohibit communication, nevermind actual language barriers and what words mean.
And then you have people that perfectly communicate - and fundamentally disagree. Some of these disagreements go so deep that you have people willing to go to war. What if the argument is, say, over who gets to choose which morality the infinity gauntlet follows? Everyone wants the gauntlet to be "good" but it must follow a specific morality set, and, if it doesn't, it will be the worst result for literally everyone (including those who think humanity is the worst). So, of course, people go to war, because otherwise, those horrendous, horrible, immoral people on the other side will impose their will on reality. Which of those are good people? Which evil? If you ask either of the combatants, it's the other side - or, if they're generous, they explain that the other side is just confused or somehow led astray, but, fundamentally, that doesn't stop them from going to war. And, more to the point, people would super-definitely go to war in order to acquire the infinity gauntlet, because there are, in fact, evil people with far more evil plans and desires than simply eliminating a buncha folks (and, if people were not willing to fight and even die to prevent that gauntlet from falling into the hands of others, that, itself, would be immoral due to apathy - effectively, by not caring enough, you're also a monster, albeit hypothetically less).
Ultimately, however, you're not going to convince people that there is any "just" action that can be taken.
But, like AA said, above, I'd pretty much be okay with anyone in this thread getting the gauntlet...
I'd wipe humanity from the face of the earth.
Humans are AWFUL and the number of indifferent, callous and downright cruel people waaaaaaay outnumber the half decent or even good people. I'd wipe the entire memory, existence of humanity so that nothing that we created would exist. Any aliens coming to Earth afterward would see no trace of our cultures, civilization, ANYTHING.
So...*SNAP*
... except this guy. That's just evil on a ludicrous scale, though still not the most evil.
(I mean, I'm pretty sure Shin actually would not, and it would be - relatively speaking - "fine" if he ever actually got a gauntlet, not that anyone ever really could. But, fundamentally, this post or sentiments like it are horrendous. Also, anyone who would use the gauntlet to immediately eliminate the gauntlet, while heroic, would also go down as one of the worst people in history for their refusal to help others. "Hey, you could cure literally everyone of disease!" "Nah, I don't believe people should have power, I'mma just throw this in the infinite garbage where no one could help anyone..." it's a similar argument to, "If I could, I'd go back in history and eliminate penicillin so a lot of people died - but that way, at least, we wouldn't have super-viruses!" Nice idealism, monstrous result.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well written, Tacticslion, I agree with a lot of things you said. (Which makes it well written, as I am the ultimate authority on well writing (would it be less egotistical to say, “I found your piece well written”? (Is this something I should worry about?)))
I’m not at a keyboard, so I can’t write out a long post, but there’s something I gotta disagree with rather strenuously.
The problem is that people have also been deeply ingrained with the sense that "mind control" is fundamentally horrifying because of the "painted smile" effect, or (they presume) I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream: that is, though it would "force" us to be happy, we wouldn't be happy, not really - instead, we'd be "happy" only on the outside, with a deep-seated body-horror-type scenario where our inner minds and/or souls would be screaming in horror and/or disgust/etc. at <things>, while our body (even surface-level emotions) would be "happy" - maybe even biologically.
That’s not the problem I have with brain washing people to make them happier/not want to hurt people they hate.
When determining whether it’s alright to do something to someone else, a good starting place is asking if you’d be alright with someone doing it to you. And I have a serious aversion to having my brain reprogrammed. And it’s not because I’m worried that I won’t be happy with my happiness - the reason I’m adverse to it is because I don’t want to be happy.
I have things, people, and goals that I value. The entire framework of my morality is built on these values, built on what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong. Being compelled to act against these values is, to me, the worst thing possible; being made to do something I disagree with irks me. I imagine most people are much the same. Having my brain rewritten to no longer value something that I built my identity around is as repulsive to me as being murdered. That I wouldn’t care after having a smile painted on my soul doesn’t help - I wouldn’t care after being murdered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now I have a problem with humans regardless, so having the Infinity Gauntlet (and the stones/gems) isn't as much a problem as seeing what they can do, how much limitation there might be, and if I truly needed to use ALL of them to fundamentally shift the universe towards a more justice oriented arc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing to keep in mind is you can actually experiment a bunch since you control time as well so you can always go and test your actions out and see how they turn out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well written, Tacticslion, I agree with a lot of things you said. (Which makes it well written, as I am the ultimate authority on well writing (would it be less egotistical to say, “I found your piece well written”? (Is this something I should worry about?)))
I’m not at a keyboard, so I can’t write out a long post, but there’s something I gotta disagree with rather strenuously.
Interesting point: I didn't fully agree with it, either, but there's only so much space to write something, and it had been a few hours, and I was tired, so I figured I'd better post and enjoy life, rather than trying to get ever deeper into rabbit-hole of ever-more-precise-concepts.
That said...
The problem is that people have also been deeply ingrained with the sense that "mind control" is fundamentally horrifying because of the "painted smile" effect, or (they presume) I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream: that is, though it would "force" us to be happy, we wouldn't be happy, not really - instead, we'd be "happy" only on the outside, with a deep-seated body-horror-type scenario where our inner minds and/or souls would be screaming in horror and/or disgust/etc. at <things>, while our body (even surface-level emotions) would be "happy" - maybe even biologically.
That’s not the problem I have with brain washing people to make them happier/not want to hurt people they hate.
When determining whether it’s alright to do something to someone else, a good starting place is asking if you’d be alright with someone doing it to you. And I have a serious aversion to having my brain reprogrammed. And it’s not because I’m worried that I won’t be happy with my happiness - the reason I’m adverse to it is because I don’t want to be happy.
I have things, people, and goals that I value. The entire framework of my morality is built on these values, built on what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong. Being compelled to act against these values is, to me, the worst thing possible; being made to do something I disagree with irks me. I imagine most people are much the same. Having my brain rewritten to no longer value something that I built my identity around is as repulsive to me as being murdered. That I wouldn’t care after having a smile painted on my soul doesn’t help - I wouldn’t care after being murdered.
The problem is your presupposition of expectations to what the brainwashing entails.
Also, I'm about to commit a deep "sin" of arguing and telling the other person what they feel (sorry): fundamentally, I believe you do, in fact, want to be happy. You just don't agree with that positive smile-based feeling as being "happy" and you also want to get there your own way.
And this was what I was getting at: the horror aspect is that it goes against our intent when we request whatever it is that we request. The demented wish, the twisted miracle, the servile demon, or the wicked jinn - these are all considered, broadly, detestable because, in the end, they don't do what we want, they do what we say, and, as evidenced by this disagreement, it's the meaning of very small words that can create deep-seated emotional responses and disagreements.
You don't want to be happy because "I have things, people, and goals that I value. The entire framework of my morality is built on these values, built on what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong." - and you presuppose that all (or most) of those would be negated while provided for happiness. That's the twisted version of the wish.
That said, there is definitely something to be said for the idea that our personal morality is wrong. This is why I make a fallacy Appeal to Authority (of sorts) by way of suggesting a vague sort of morality, but letting the gauntlet do the "heavy lifting" as it were for morality-determination.
"Oh, no, but I don't want to be a good guy!" is, frankly, kind of dumb and self-centered. I mean, I get it - I like me and tend to think I'm correct (because, if I wasn't, I'd either have deep-seated emotional distress about the dissonance of my actions from my beliefs, or else actively attempt to change either mind or actions/words/etc.), but the fact is I'm not always correct.
And because of that, I recognize that there is the potential for higher moral authority than I am and, in regards to that, I have to accept that, should that greater moral authority suddenly be granted leeway to determine whether or not I make the cut, I must needs allow it to do exactly that, lest I, by my selfishness, hurt everyone. I absolutely have stuff I want to do and get done and things that I value, but, you know, that's kind of the thing - I think those things are correct, but in seeking the non-arrogant way of handling it, I've also got to recognize my own limitations.
This isn't to say that you feel this way, of course.
Then again, though I really don't want to be mind-controlled, I'd actually rather be mind-controlled for non-evil purposes (and even many evil ones) than be dead... though that's partially because I'm not a person that's valuable enough as a mind-control target to matter. If I was more powerful, influential, or could do more collateral damage, I'd probably mind a lot more. If the mind-control would command that I do something that I deem evil, I'd sure as heck mind in my current state... buuuu~uuuuut, as we've established we're all definitive-but-limited moral agents, and, ultimately, I recognize that I may well be doing evil things without intent. And, you know, context matters a lot: we're talking about literally appealing to what would become a higher moral authority.
I'm pretty sure that you won't agree to those terms being acceptable... but that's okay, because that's where we get to people who actually communicate but still disagree.
And, hey, I'd still rather have it be in your hands than most peoples'.
(And, of course, I'm presupposing a lack of limits that the gauntlet might not actually have - I mean, I know what's said about it, but, eh. Still, seems real enough - well, in it's own fictional universe writ into ours - for me to trust it! XD)
IF you had the Infininity Gauntlet, what would you do?Die, probably. Either from not being able to handle the power or getting murdered by someone who wants it.
First: this is also someone I don't want to have the gauntlet. We need a TOZ to make life better.
Second: that energy field is clearly smaller than your head. I'm sure it'll be fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm about to commit a deep "sin" of arguing and telling the other person what they feel (sorry): fundamentally, I believe you do, in fact, want to be happy. You just don't agree with that positive smile-based feeling as being "happy" and you also want to get there your own way.
Ah, that's a missaying I wouldn't have missaid, were I not hammering it out on a touchscreen. If I could retroactively amend in a sentence, I would clarify: "And it’s not because I’m worried that I won’t be happy with my happiness - the reason I’m adverse to it is because I don’t want to be happy. There are other things that I value over my own happiness."
You don't want to be happy because "I have things, people, and goals that I value. The entire framework of my morality is built on these values, built on what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong." - and you presuppose that all (or most) of those would be negated while provided for happiness. That's the twisted version of the wish.
[...]
You don't want to be happy because "I have things, people, and goals
"Oh, no, but I don't want to be a good guy!" is, frankly, kind of dumb and self-centered. I mean, I get it - I like me and tend to think I'm correct (because, if I wasn't, I'd either have deep-seated emotional distress about the dissonance of my actions from my beliefs, or else actively attempt to change either mind or actions/words/etc.), but the fact is I'm not always correct.
The fear is, that I'd disagree with what the Gauntlet's wielder thinks makes someone a good person, or, if we're using the Gauntlet as a supreme moral authority, that I'd disagree with the Gauntlet as to what makes a person good. Morality is, by it's nature, subjective, but even if there was such a thing as a supreme moral authority I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. We know that the people being "turned good" disagree with what the Gauntlet's wielder or the Gauntlet thinks; it's why they're having their brains changed.
To use an example of someone who'd definitely get hit by the Gauntlet's mind-whammy, say that there's a person who believes strongly in "pay evil unto evil" - they've been seriously wronged in their life and can't live happily in a world where the person who wronged them gets away scot-free. (Heck, say there's a nation of these people. Or several.) The Gauntlet rewrites all of their minds so that they can be happy without their revenge, but in doing so changes who they are, fundamentally, without their approval and consent.
Or, to use myself as an example; what if the Gauntlet or it's wielder believes to be moral something I find reprehensible, such as, I dunno, that people shouldn't try to "cheat" their "natural" lifespan via vitrification, or that being gay offends the LORD, or that administering euthanasia to someone in terrible pain is morally equivalent to murder, or that killing people as "punishment" for breaking laws isn't. There's a number of stances I hold, that other people consider unethical, even people who aren't mustache twirling villains! And I'd be pretty adverse to having my brain rewritten to not hold these stances.
I'm pretty sure that you won't agree to those terms being acceptable... but that's okay, because that's where we get to people who actually communicate but still disagree.
Aye, that is a welcome change of pace. :)
I've something of a fondness for debate that was never properly ground out by the vainglorious crush of humanity - it's nice to have a polite argument!
And, hey, I'd still rather have it be in your hands than most peoples'.
Likewise.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I would use the Reality stone for, make myself a nice cake. I haven't had cake in a while that I really liked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would destroy all social media, and maybe all of the Internet just to be sure. Back to speaking to human beings face to face or by letter and ordering by mail catalog. Yes life would slow down and the economy would suffer damage. The first is good, the latter we can recover from.
I would make it impossible to use certain language of propaganda. Like if you're about use the language of dehumanization (to say or write "all [x people] are [vermin, a disease, etc.]") your tongue/hands turns to bubbles for a few seconds, and the definition of "dehumanization" hangs in the air for a second.
I would give myself the powers of shapeshifting and teleportation.
I would try to be a mostly-benevolent tyrant, but probably fail.
I would make all firearms, ballistic weapons, and explosives disappear from the earth, and make it impossible for anyone to figure out or remember how to recreate them. Like if they think about it, they suddenly just get the Freedent commercial stuck in their head and suddenly crave chewing gum and forget all about making weapons. If people are really hell bent on destroying one another they will have blades, bludgeons, arrows, etc.--yes, people will still hurt each other, but a lot slower, and leaving injuries that are much more treatable medically. People can hunt with bows and traps.
I wouldn't create more resources necessarily (that is bound to cause mayhem or imbalance elsewhere) but I would use the insights given me by possessing Mind, Time, Reality, etc. to determine how resources can be shared more or less equally and then enact that. People who whine about resources being shared equally, yes, even if they feel they did more work to earn it than everyone else, shall be turned into pigs, and the resulting bacon will be shared with everyone.
I'd make sure education has infinite funding and a well-designed curriculum (again using the stones to determine the best course of action there). Okay, maybe teachers get a tiny bit more bacon than everyone else (but just a tiny bit, I don't want it to go to their heads).
All governments will be forced to honor all (still valid) treaties they have made, and not cheat around them.
And because I am a monster... I would give all cats thumbs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm about to commit a deep "sin" of arguing and telling the other person what they feel (sorry): fundamentally, I believe you do, in fact, want to be happy. You just don't agree with that positive smile-based feeling as being "happy" and you also want to get there your own way.
Ah, that's a missaying I wouldn't have missaid, were I not hammering it out on a touchscreen. If I could retroactively amend in a sentence, I would clarify: "And it’s not because I’m worried that I won’t be happy with my happiness - the reason I’m adverse to it is because I don’t want to be happy. There are other things that I value over my own happiness."
Super-fair! Also I look like a jerk! :D
(Not... not hard, actually.)
((Also, I broadly lump, "satisfaction" into "happiness" there, with the implication being that you are satisfied - or "happy" - on a more fundamental level than whatever surface-based sensation/feeling you may get, even when otherwise actively unhappy or dissatisfied on said surface level. For (a really weak) example: you may really, really, really want that candy bar, and you might be super-hungry, and addicted to chocolate; being happy and/or satisfied might mean, then, taking the chocolate candy bar and eating it. However, you are also watching your diet (too much sugar), don't have a way of cleaning your teeth (that, until the dentist fixes, will respond poorly to excess sugar), and are trying to purge yourself of your addictions. So, in order to be satisfied and happy, in this instance, you forgo both satisfaction and happiness - you value, and prefer dissatisfaction and unhappiness, not because you want to be dissatisfied and unhappy, but because they are incidental acquisitions on your way to feeling satisfied and happy with yourself for unrelated reasons that you value more. Sure, you're depressed, grumpy, and miserable as all get-out, with a pounding headache and gut-turning hunger, but you're "happy" - or "satisfied" - because you did the thing that, ultimately, will be better for you than the more instant-gratification version. ... I have problems with our language, sometimes.))
The fear is, that I'd disagree with what the Gauntlet's wielder thinks makes someone a good person, or, if we're using the Gauntlet as a supreme moral authority, that I'd disagree with the Gauntlet as to what makes a person good. Morality is, by it's nature, subjective, but even if there was such a thing as a supreme moral authority I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. We know that the people being "turned good" disagree with what the Gauntlet's wielder or the Gauntlet thinks; it's why they're having their brains changed.
Eeeeeeeeeeeexactly! Now this is what I was trying to get at with,
... even if there was a universal system of morality built by a non-biased third party with access to absolute and infinite knowledge and wisdom, it would broadly be distrusted because, "strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for government" - an idea that carries over into literally any source of "absolute" statements (no matter how concrete or convincing that source would have to be). So, in that context, a single individual - no matter where that person derives their morality from - would never be trusted and would automatically be labeled evil.
... though I might have overstated the distrust with, "would automatically be labeled evil" bit, if only because I was attempting to explicitly cover those instances of literally calling the idea evil without context, but then (rather foolishly) implicitly broadened it to include all who oppose it... sooooooooooooooo... WHOOPS.
But, ultimately, that's the thing - that's what I was trying to indicate about the moral rejection: there is no form of decree that would permit a person who rejected authority to automatically accept that as authority.
For the sake of argument, for a moment, let's presume a gestalt real/PF-esque world with a vague similarity to the Judeo-Christian belief system, and Pathfinder rules:
- so a literally omniscient, omnipotent, divine being literally made everything there is, including the very capacity for rational thought and morality
- in doing so, said entity created a strict system of morality: clearly defining "right" and "wrong" in an unarguable and coherent way
- said entity created a direct and obvious method of proving this to folks, by way of detect evil spells
- this is called Objective Morality
- insert a history exceptionally similar to our own, here (though, honestly, it works, even if otherwise)
- magic is (re?)discovered
- it does not matter that there are actual things that can literally prove anything; it does not matter how much scientific scrutiny the spells and effects are placed under; it does not matter what they say: fundamentally, people will be suspicious of a higher authority handing down morality, because that higher authority is not themselves, and, ultimately, most people look to themselves as the "source" of their understanding of morality
The reality of the situation above doesn't, ultimately, matter.
Of course, this becomes much more obscure when you have an artifact imposing such constraints. It falls much more easily into the realm of "aquatic farcical ceremony" than an actually literally omniscient omnipotent creator deity with clear and obvious proofs of said morality.
But, of course, that's why I urged... caution when eliminating "all evil <people>" (or whatever). Without some guidance, it's very possible that (no matter what your morality) the gauntlet considers you evil, and, though you should be willing to make that sacrifice should it prove necessary, by urging a more subtle, nuanced approach, more people live, and you get better odds of ending up on that side.
Better to indicate something more like, "those who actively do large-scale wicked and harmful things to others and would not refrain from doing those, even in an environment where that was difficult to impossible, and would hate the new paradigm of infinite peace and goodness for all" rather than any other actual standard - in that sense, you're creating a world^ that would actively be torture, and thus should not include those anyway, simply due to the suffering they'd undergo. Of course, you could always simply put them in their own place where they're free to do whatever to each other and be locked away from everyone else, with no other restraints or alterations. Most religions call that some variant of "hell," though (what with being locked out of paradise and all), and generally refer to such people as some variant of, "demons." I'unno if that's really a thing you'd want to create in order to let people keep living their lives?
That's really the problem with supreme executive power, but also the basics of free will - you're going to have people calling out every decision you make, no matter how good or even banal. (See, also: YouTube/internet comments/internet forums and literally any politics anywhere.)
^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would destroy all social media, and maybe all of the Internet just to be sure. Back to speaking to human beings face to face or by letter and ordering by mail catalog. Yes life would slow down and the economy would suffer damage. The first is good, the latter we can recover from.
I would make it impossible to use certain language of propaganda. Like if you're about use the language of dehumanization (to say or write "all [x people] are [vermin, a disease, etc.]") your tongue/hands turns to bubbles for a few seconds, and the definition of "dehumanization" hangs in the air for a second.
I would give myself the powers of shapeshifting and teleportation.
I would try to be a mostly-benevolent tyrant, but probably fail.I would make all firearms, ballistic weapons, and explosives disappear from the earth, and make it impossible for anyone to figure out or remember how to recreate them. Like if they think about it, they suddenly just get the Freedent commercial stuck in their head and suddenly crave chewing gum and forget all about making weapons. If people are really hell bent on destroying one another they will have blades, bludgeons, arrows, etc.--yes, people will still hurt each other, but a lot slower, and leaving injuries that are much more treatable medically. People can hunt with bows and traps.
I wouldn't create more resources necessarily (that is bound to cause mayhem or imbalance elsewhere) but I would use the insights given me by possessing Mind, Time, Reality, etc. to determine how resources can be shared more or less equally and then enact that. People who whine about resources being shared equally, yes, even if they feel they did more work to earn it than everyone else, shall be turned into pigs, and the resulting bacon will be shared with everyone.
I'd make sure education has infinite funding and a well-designed curriculum (again using the stones to determine the best course of action there). Okay, maybe teachers get a tiny bit more bacon than everyone else (but just a tiny...
Sufficiently horrifying! At least you removed the internet before giving cats thumbs, though. That'll help a lot in the ensuing apocalypse~!
Aaaaaaaaaaaalso: DEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUE~! Nice to see you 'round~!
(I know you're around, we just rarely cross paths anymore.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd wipe humanity from the face of the earth.
Humans are AWFUL and the number of indifferent, callous and downright cruel people waaaaaaay outnumber the half decent or even good people. I'd wipe the entire memory, existence of humanity so that nothing that we created would exist. Any aliens coming to Earth afterward would see no trace of our cultures, civilization, ANYTHING.
So...*SNAP*
easy there, Dracula.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would destroy all social media, and maybe all of the Internet just to be sure. Back to speaking to human beings face to face or by letter and ordering by mail catalog. Yes life would slow down and the economy would suffer damage. The first is good, the latter we can recover from.
I would make it impossible to use certain language of propaganda. Like if you're about use the language of dehumanization (to say or write "all [x people] are [vermin, a disease, etc.]") your tongue/hands turns to bubbles for a few seconds, and the definition of "dehumanization" hangs in the air for a second.
I would give myself the powers of shapeshifting and teleportation.
I would try to be a mostly-benevolent tyrant, but probably fail.I would make all firearms, ballistic weapons, and explosives disappear from the earth, and make it impossible for anyone to figure out or remember how to recreate them. Like if they think about it, they suddenly just get the Freedent commercial stuck in their head and suddenly crave chewing gum and forget all about making weapons. If people are really hell bent on destroying one another they will have blades, bludgeons, arrows, etc.--yes, people will still hurt each other, but a lot slower, and leaving injuries that are much more treatable medically. People can hunt with bows and traps.
I wouldn't create more resources necessarily (that is bound to cause mayhem or imbalance elsewhere) but I would use the insights given me by possessing Mind, Time, Reality, etc. to determine how resources can be shared more or less equally and then enact that. People who whine about resources being shared equally, yes, even if they feel they did more work to earn it than everyone else, shall be turned into pigs, and the resulting bacon will be shared with everyone.
I'd aake sure education has infinite funding and a well-designed curriculum (again using the stones to determine the best course of action there). Okay, maybe teachers get a tiny bit more bacon than everyone else (but just a tiny...
this world sounds awesome, but I would be unable to live in it. I need my internet. Badly. I do, however, look forward to being so frustrated I do nothing but oink the freedent song as a pig, and I hope I am the most delicious bacon sandwich you and your teacher-priests ever eat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I can get behind a world where cats have thumbs. Not unless that same world gives dogs ape and/or dolphin intelligence. :p
Also blowing up social media does not preclude someone from inventing a different form. I mean sure, you can burn all the trashy romance novels in the world, but eventually someone will try to write it again...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....Freedent's the one that gets the stick out of gum and...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IF you had the Infininity Gauntlet, what would you do?Die, probably. Either from not being able to handle the power or getting murdered by someone who wants it.First: this is also someone I don't want to have the gauntlet. We need a TOZ to make life better.
Second: that energy field is clearly smaller than your head. I'm sure it'll be fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine!
Y'know, you're absolutely right. It'd be fine. I'd just snap my fingers and make the challengers my allies. Give them all lesser gauntlets and become the Infinity Force. Protect the multiverse. Stuff like that.
Tri,
Technically you'd be making either a Council of Reeds, a Council of Doom or just Infinity Watch. There's not ever been an Infinity Force. There are other forces that might be as powerful; The Nova Force, the Phoenix Force, the Odin Force, The Enigma Force, The Spirit of Vengeance (which is kind of a force...) But that's all the forces in Marvel that I know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Nova Force, the Phoenix Force, the Odin Force, The Enigma Force, The Spirit of Vengeance (which is kind of a force...) But that's all the forces in Marvel that I know.
Hulk is strongest force there is!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DQ
Very well, you may have the Gauntlet (and that's "Didn't Quote" above, not "DeathQuaker".)
And because I am a monster... I would give all cats thumbs.
Aaaaand, no. You can't have it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if I also let you have extra bacon, Damon? ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see.
I mentioned post-scarcity above, but I think also the ability to ensure that *everyone* gets a brief moment of insight of 'walking in other person's shoes' before making significant decisions would be a necessary addition.
Between post-scarcity and, in essence 'Don't be a douche because this is what happens for no gain' I suspect we'd be pretty much on track to a Utopia.
No huge terrifying things to scare everyone (unless they want to be, and again, personal choice).
No "They got more than me" -- post-scarcity meaning in this case that there is no finite resources.
Lot more useful than failing at basic population math.
...and no, I'm not even going to think about DQ's reality over there.
It's terrifying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see.I mentioned post-scarcity above, but I think also the ability to ensure that *everyone* gets a brief moment of insight of 'walking in other person's shoes' before making significant decisions would be a necessary addition.
Between post-scarcity and, in essence 'Don't be a douche because this is what happens for no gain' I suspect we'd be pretty much on track to a Utopia.
No huge terrifying things to scare everyone (unless they want to be, and again, personal choice).
No "They got more than me" -- post-scarcity meaning in this case that there is no finite resources.
Lot more useful than failing at basic population math.
...and no, I'm not even going to think about DQ's reality over there.
It's terrifying.
,
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would destroy all social media, and maybe all of the Internet just to be sure.
The internet is where all my friends live. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I’d have to use the Time stone to workshop the name. Unless I went with Tozzy Toz and the Funky Bunch.
I think you mean use the Mind Stone/Gem to better ideas. I mean it does contain ALL thought. :)
Damon,
Yes Hulk is the strongest, but not the most powerful force. Which reminds me! I forgot all about the Starbrand. Admittedly it's not a FORCE but it's kind of a power so... yeah.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I’d have to use the Time stone to workshop the name. Unless I went with Tozzy Toz and the Funky Bunch.I think you mean use the Mind Stone/Gem to better ideas. I mean it does contain ALL thought. :)
Not at all, I gotta look into the future to see which ones people actually liked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Destroying the entire internet is kind of harsh. I mean yes there are a lot of sucky things going on but also there is some good. I would say be a bit more picky.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, where will I find porn...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't go back to hording Magazines I just can't do it!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, hiding them so the wife can't find them but future generations can.
That's a lost art form right there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if I also let you have extra bacon, Damon? ;)
I have three cats who are holy terrors without thumbs.
But..extra bacon...I'll get back to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damon,
Yes Hulk is the strongest, but not the most powerful force.
I know, it just seemed like what the Hulk would say if he overheard this discussion.
Over in DC, the Speed Force is a place as well as an energy form; it appears on the multiversal map. If the Strong Force dimension also borders the Marvel Universes, perhaps Hulk has been tapping into that all along without realizing it.
Yeah, okay, be still wouldn't be the Strong Force.
easy there, Dracula.I'd wipe humanity from the face of the earth.
Humans are AWFUL and the number of indifferent, callous and downright cruel people waaaaaaay outnumber the half decent or even good people. I'd wipe the entire memory, existence of humanity so that nothing that we created would exist. Any aliens coming to Earth afterward would see no trace of our cultures, civilization, ANYTHING.
So...*SNAP*
You know what? I think that I DID write this just after finishing S2 of CASTLEVANIA!
But the sentiment still holds. Human beings ARE THE WORST and pretty much DO need to be wiped from the face of the earth. It's easy to downplay and mock this sentiment but only if you have perma-blinders on and aren't paying attention to humanity as a whole.
We really are pretty bloody awful with no desire to do or be better. Are there good people out there? DEFINITELY. But any good that they are able to do is massively drowned out by the selfish, evil, simpleminded majority.
So yeah, my solution wouldn't be a brutal or as bloody Dracula's but it would be as permanent.
(I mean, I'm pretty sure Shin actually would not, and it would be - relatively speaking - "fine" if he ever actually got a gauntlet, not that anyone ever really could. But, fundamentally, this post or sentiments like it are horrendous.)
You cant use the Gauntlet to "FIX" humanity's problems. In any way that would actually matter would be either removing free will or creating a path to an even greater conflict down the line.
Create more resources so that everyone won't go without basic necessities? Some greedy, amoral group of jerks is going to decide that not everyone DESERVES to have those basic necessities and try to TAKE THEM.
Making everyone forcibly "good", removes agency and free will.
Removing firearms? People will simply find more efficient ways to kill each other with improvised melee weapons just like they did before the advent of firearms.
Humans CHOOSE to be the way that they are. They make a conscious decision. It's one thing to decide that you're going to help yourself prosper. It's something else to decide that someone or some group doesn't deserve to prosper or even exist because of a darker skin hue, gender, sexuality or religion. There's no FIXING that part of it.
Even forced empathy, like making people feel the pain of others is just a band-aid. You shouldn't have to be forced to live in someone else's shoes in order to empathize. You're human. They are human. Anything that you don't want to be done to you? ASSUME that the other human doesn't want to be done to them EITHER. Human beings are unnecessarily cruel and callous because they CHOOSE TO BE.
Humans can't even do something as easy and simple as BE KIND TO ONE ANOTHER
And that is why I'd DEFINITELY *SNAP*.
Call it evil, call it crazy.
But having the means to eradicate a greater evil and pussyfooting around doing so or doing nothing is both cowardly and being complicit in said evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And because I am a monster... I would give all cats thumbs.
MY GOD. You ARE a MONSTER.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but at least you get to live.
I for one am not convinced the majority of humanity is unsavable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I mean, I'm pretty sure Shin actually would not, and it would be - relatively speaking - "fine" if he ever actually got a gauntlet, not that anyone ever really could. But, fundamentally, this post or sentiments like it are horrendous.)You cant use the Gauntlet to "FIX" humanity's problems. In any way that would actually matter would be either removing free will or creating a path to an even greater conflict down the line.
Create more resources so that everyone won't go without basic necessities? Some greedy, amoral group of jerks is going to decide that not everyone DESERVES to have those basic necessities and try to TAKE THEM.
Making everyone forcibly "good", removes agency and free will.
Removing firearms? People will simply find more efficient ways to kill each other with improvised melee weapons just like they did before the advent of firearms.
Humans CHOOSE to be the way that they are. They make a conscious decision. It's one thing to decide that you're going to help yourself prosper. It's something else to decide that someone or some group doesn't deserve to prosper or even exist because of a darker skin hue, gender, sexuality or religion. There's no FIXING that part of it.
Even forced empathy, like making people feel the pain of others is just a band-aid. You shouldn't have to be forced to live in someone else's shoes in order to empathize. You're human. They are human. Anything that you don't want to be done to you? ASSUME that the other human doesn't want to be done to them EITHER. Human beings are unnecessarily cruel and callous because they CHOOSE TO BE.
Humans can't even do something as easy and simple as BE KIND TO ONE ANOTHER
And that is why I'd DEFINITELY *SNAP*.
Call it evil, call it crazy.
But having the means to eradicate a greater evil and pussyfooting around doing so or doing nothing is both cowardly and being complicit in said evil.
I bolded the part that's completely untrue.
I've seen and taken part in countless acts of kindness.
You need to get better friends.
Or at least be less cynical of the friends you have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, hiding them so the wife can't find them but future generations can.
That's a lost art form right there.
That was how I found my first adult publication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I mean, I'm pretty sure Shin actually would not, and it would be - relatively speaking - "fine" if he ever actually got a gauntlet, not that anyone ever really could. But, fundamentally, this post or sentiments like it are horrendous.)You cant use the Gauntlet to "FIX" humanity's problems. In any way that would actually matter would be either removing free will or creating a path to an even greater conflict down the line.
Create more resources so that everyone won't go without basic necessities? Some greedy, amoral group of jerks is going to decide that not everyone DESERVES to have those basic necessities and try to TAKE THEM.
Making everyone forcibly "good", removes agency and free will.
Removing firearms? People will simply find more efficient ways to kill each other with improvised melee weapons just like they did before the advent of firearms.
Humans CHOOSE to be the way that they are. They make a conscious decision. It's one thing to decide that you're going to help yourself prosper. It's something else to decide that someone or some group doesn't deserve to prosper or even exist because of a darker skin hue, gender, sexuality or religion. There's no FIXING that part of it.
Even forced empathy, like making people feel the pain of others is just a band-aid. You shouldn't have to be forced to live in someone else's shoes in order to empathize. You're human. They are human. Anything that you don't want to be done to you? ASSUME that the other human doesn't want to be done to them EITHER. Human beings are unnecessarily cruel and callous because they CHOOSE TO BE.
Humans can't even do something as easy and simple as BE KIND TO ONE ANOTHER
And that is why I'd DEFINITELY *SNAP*.
Call it evil, call it crazy.
But having the means to eradicate a greater evil and pussyfooting around doing so or doing nothing is both cowardly and being complicit in said evil.
Die, monster! You don't belong in this world!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And because I am a monster... I would give all cats thumbs.MY GOD. You ARE a MONSTER.
Pot and the kettle, Shin, pot and the kettle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*inhales deeply from kettle*
Ah, that’s the stuff.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing firearms? People will simply find more efficient ways to kill each other with improvised melee weapons just like they did before the advent of firearms.
Don't take me out of context. My post clearly says people are welcome to fight and kill themselves (and hunt and do useful things) with other means; not trying to cure humanity of anything. As I work for a group that is trying to find better ways to treat combat trauma and have seen the unique and NASTY injuries those kind of weapons cause (from a very distant position as an editor of scientific articles, mind), I'm just trying to find a way to lower the time violence victims have to spend in the hospital and be more likely to retain their limbs. Hopefully that means medical bills and healthcare costs and in particular the cost of caring for veterans goes down, and makes it more likely veterans can live fulfilled, functional lives post-combat. Plus also the classification of weapons I listed includes nukes and chemical bombs, and I feel like we could all do better without the threat of those in our lives. Again yes, people will still hurt each other. Not trying to evade that reality, just adjust the costs.
I want to get rid of the Internet because people need to learn how to form relationships with each other face to face, even those like myself wired with much difficulty and anxiety in doing so. And it's a bad thing more and more people are relying on a faceless medium for psychosocial support, IMO, because it makes people MUCH more prone to being radicalized and indoctrinated. Yes, of course it can happen without the Internet (and has). I'm just interested in reducing the escalation, and am willing in my fictional universe where I am god-emperor of everything to go to extremes to do so. Plus social media is just s$@!.
Not interested in curing humanity of anything; there's lots of s$## they still have to figure out for themselves or die trying, and indeed there's no point to human existence if we're not here to figure out the hard stuff. "Spiritual beings here to have a human experience" and all that.
The cats are there just keep us on our toes.
(Now, in my non-tyrannical mode as myself mostly every day, I belong to a community that believes the seed of the Divine/Ultimate Love/Light of Truth exists in all people. Yes, most people don't pay one bit of attention to that seed, and never will. But I would rather live to see the rare moments I have seen where that seed blossoms and grows into something beautiful, than wipe that garden out for all the weeds. And you never know when something that looks like a weed turns out to produce a lovely flower. Sometimes all someone needs is a chance. I don't REALLY want to have the Infinity Gauntlet or do some of those things of course (I presumed a good bit of tongue in cheek humor) but I do know that world I want to build comes out of suffering and hard work to make things better, with a lot of failure and pitfalls along the way. Living isn't easy, and it's not supposed to be--but the small shining moments of love and beauty I have encountered in the world make it worth it. Lately I have honestly had a lot of "f$#+ it and destroy us all" thoughts, but it's interesting, reading someone else say those very things that I have been thinking incessantly only makes me want to return to my heart and focus on hope and seeking that which is Eternal in all people rather than losing my faith in everything. So thanks, Shin, you've returned me to being a more hopeful and kinder person today.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing firearms? People will simply find more efficient ways to kill each other with improvised melee weapons just like they did before the advent of firearms.Don't take me out of context. My post clearly says people are welcome to fight and kill themselves (and hunt and do useful things) with other means; not trying to cure humanity of anything. As I work for a group that is trying to find better ways to treat combat trauma and have seen the unique and NASTY injuries those kind of weapons cause (from a very distant position as an editor of scientific articles, mind), I'm just trying to find a way to lower the time violence victims have to spend in the hospital and be more likely to retain their limbs. Hopefully that means medical bills and healthcare costs and in particular the cost of caring for veterans goes down, and makes it more likely veterans can live fulfilled, functional lives post-combat. Plus also the classification of weapons I listed includes nukes and chemical bombs, and I feel like we could all do better without the threat of those in our lives. Again yes, people will still hurt each other. Not trying to evade that reality, just adjust the costs.
I want to get rid of the Internet because people need to learn how to form relationships with each other face to face, even those like myself wired with much difficulty and anxiety in doing so. And it's a bad thing more and more people are relying on a faceless medium for psychosocial support, IMO, because it makes people MUCH more prone to being radicalized and indoctrinated. Yes, of course it can happen without the Internet (and has). I'm just interested in reducing the escalation, and am willing in my fictional universe where I am god-emperor of everything to go to extremes to do so. Plus social media is just s#$+.
Not interested in curing humanity of anything; there's lots of s%#% they still have to figure out for themselves or die trying, and indeed there's no point to human existence if we're not here to...
But without the internet I would never have met you, nor enjoyed the glories of cap'n crunch french toast.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to get rid of the Internet because people need to learn how to form relationships with each other face to face, even those like myself wired with much difficulty and anxiety in doing so. And it's a bad thing more and more people are relying on a faceless medium for psychosocial support, IMO, because it makes people MUCH more prone to being radicalized and indoctrinated.
I dunno, DeathQuaker . . . if anything, the internet unradicalized me. I grew up in, well, I don’t want to call it a cult, because it pales in comparison to, say, the cult of Scientology, but I grew up in a cult. The kind of cult where you’re expected to marry inside the religion, where you’re discouraged from associating with people from outside the religion, and where you’re told that leaving the cult means eternal damnation. If it weren’t for the internet, if it weren’t for all the sane people I met there, if it weren’t for my friends, I’d probably belong to that cult today.
The internet’s a place where people can share ideas, where people can shop around instead of sticking with the beliefs of their locality, for lack of better options. And that’s a really very incredibly precious thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did this cult have cookies?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did this cult have cookies?
Actually, yes. Tons of them. Got free cookies at the church roughly once a month, maybe a little less frequently (no set schedule). I’d stuff my pockets with them, like a camel at a sugar oasis.
They had cookies and were STILL a&+&@$*s, f!!~ them.
Not at all, I gotta look into the future to see which ones people actually liked.Eh, I’d have to use the Time stone to workshop the name. Unless I went with Tozzy Toz and the Funky Bunch.I think you mean use the Mind Stone/Gem to better ideas. I mean it does contain ALL thought. :)
Phhttff. If you can read everyone's mind, I'm pretty sure you don't need to look into the future.