What if the entire world is united.

@moveoftheyear said ^

I think world would have a great change.ie a Good change.

I don't think the entire world could ever stay completely united. People are too different, and that's just the nature of how the world is, so yeah ;p

The world can’t be united, as the power and money is held by whoever is most psychopathic and anti-social.
People who are modest and idealistic don’t make it to the top. You need to be corrupt and have a superiority complex.

All this talk about nuclear weapons is just a big red herring. So far we managed not to annihilate the human race. Who would you exploit if u kill everybody?
Resource distribution and monopolies are the problem. Luckily humans are also a resource, so most of us will happily live until we reach the peak of 12 trillion in 2050. If Musk can, he will add slave implants to 10% by then :)

The flow of information is too intertwined with a couple big players. Freedom of information fails. That’s much scarier than a hydrogen bomb and already happening.

"That’s much scarier than a hydrogen bomb and already happening."

• I would prefer any information monopoly over a thermonuclear war.
  The biggest danger of AI is that it could trigger a thermonuclear war.

Information monopoly ->
slavery for those not in control.

@AveraWyvern said ^

I think world would have a great change.ie a Good change.

I don't think the entire world could ever stay completely united. People are too different, and that's just the nature of how the world is, so yeah ;p

They said that before about countries. “They could never stay united, so each country should only have one race. That will prevent the problem; Black and White people are too different.” That obviously was disproved. Different people can be ruled under one system, like in the US but more diverse, less crime-ridden, less electorally compromised, less murders by government agents, less pollution, less egotistical kings, less billionaire corruption, less concentration of power in the wealthy, less racist posts on Truth Social...

@Voldstar said ^

They said that before about countries. “They could never stay united, so each country should only have one race. That will prevent the problem; Black and White people are too different.” That obviously was disproved. Different people can be ruled under one system, like in the US but more diverse, less crime-ridden, less electorally compromised, less murders by government agents, less pollution, less egotistical kings, less billionaire corruption, less concentration of power in the wealthy, less racist posts on Truth Social...

I wasn't talking about race or saying different people can't live under one system though ;p I just meant that getting the entire world to stay completely united is probably hard to imagine.

It would be good if India and Pakistan became permanent members of the UN security council, and veto rights were abolished.
It would be good if all countries would be pressured to take part in the International Criminal Court.
It would be good if the rogue states Israel and North Korea with nuclear weapons would be pressured to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Those are all good suggestions obviously. Just that Donald and Vladimir regularly breach treaties their nation or even they themselves signed.
It’s still good to make those declarations of intent obviously, as long as your word counts for anything at all.

And that brings me back to information.
Pathological liars get re-elected, because perceived truth beats what’s actually happening. Conspiracy theorists that live in a separate reality indirectly shape the geopolitical happenings with their votes.

Donald can actually order somebody to “press the button”. So if you can get that power and many others by lying nonstop and distorting reality how is that not worse than the possibility of going so mad that u end your power over people by ending the world?

One must not adopt a “probability bias” here. When u play the lottery even tho ur chance is very low, sometimes certain jackpot numbers even make it worth playing from a mathematical standpoint - ignoring better investments with guaranteed payout obviously.
Thermonuclear war is different.
Price of the bombs is zero because there won’t be an economy after the button. So no invest? Great!
Chance to lose 100%... i don’t like this game...
Mutual destruction has no winner. *

So all the loose cannon images created and the saber rattling serves only the purpose of installing fear in the populace. Your own populace so they don’t rebel and continue to put up with your lies and the enemy populace so it creates problems in the domestic policy.

*I’m aware that the chance is non-zero and yes, that sucks, but you don’t have the necessary information to start make assumptions here or even bother. Ask a different think tank they will spew out different probabilities simultaneously, showing how pointless it is to try and calculate the chance that your little sister flips over the chess board in a losing position when the chess board is the entire world, your little sister is a dictator you will never meet and yet you can’t refuse to play. There’s just more important stuff, like staying healthy and trying to be nice.

@tpr said ^

"That’s much scarier than a hydrogen bomb and already happening."

• I would prefer any information monopoly over a thermonuclear war.

I’d prefer AIDS over instant death too!
But it’s still a logical fallacy comparing something that’s happening and getting worse with something that poses a threat. And yeah I know I started it... that was a kinda bad comparison to stress my point.

"I’m aware that the chance is non-zero"

• We were close several times.
  On 27 October 1962 Vasily Arkhipov executive officer on board of Soviet submarine B-59 decided not to launch his nuclear torpedo towards the US fleet that dropped depth charges on him near Cuba.
  On 8 October 1973 Golda Meir of Israel readied 20 nuclear weapons of each 20 kiloton TNT equivalent for use against Syria.
  On 26 September 1983 Stanislav Petrov received a satellite warning of 5 United States missiles incoming, but he judged it must be false alarm and did not initiate nuclear retaliation.
  Also now: what happens if Russia drops a nuclear weapon on Ukraine, or Israel on Iran?

@tpr said ^

On 26 September 1983 Stanislav Petrov received a satellite warning of 5 United States missiles incoming, but he judged it must be false alarm and did not initiate nuclear retaliation.

There's actually a Petrov Day to commemorate him.