If You had the Power of God, How would you change the World?

[creation]

Would you feel joy in doing this?

Could some consider doing that itself as cruelty?

I would be more happy for people to feel shame at the thought of cruelty, than for people to take pleasure in inflicting cruelty on others.

Yes I know, that is what you wrote before.

But feeling shame at the thought of cruelty obviously does not stop people taking pleasure in inflicting cruelty on others. It obviously does not stop you.

See, feeling shame at the thought of cruelty is just over shadowed by the pleasure taken in actually doing it. Just like you when you suppress the feeling of shame at the thought of doing wrong, in order so you can continue to keep doing, so do all other people do the exact same thing as you do.

How else do you think you can keep doing the wrong and cruel things that you are doing now?

As a god I'd have the privilege of never having to feel that my actions were cruel.

But are you "a God"? The question only asked, IF you had the 'power of' a God.

How do you know 'a God' never has to feel that their actions are cruel?

Also, you did not answer my clarifying question, Could some consider you doing what you want to do being cruel itself?

If so, then what you would be doing would be cruel, and then the feeling of joy and happiness you would think you would get, would be supplanted with utter abject shame.

See, if you really had the power of God, then you would already know WHY all people feel joy in the cruelty that they all do, including yourself here.

The cruelty you are doing right now, in the days of when this is written, would not suddenly stop if the joy you feel when doing it was supplanted with utter abject shame, you would just continue to do it, but more secretly from now on.

If you truly wanted to stop cruelty, then first you would admit the cruelty that you, yourself, does do, then you would seek to change those ways, for the better, then you would do all you can to change for the better, and to do this you would have to be truly open and honest about the cruelty you are doing right now.

But from what you have written here one might think that you, yourself, believe that you do not do cruel things, nor that you feel joy in cruelty, and that, from your perspective, it is only "others" who are cruel and feel joy from cruelty, correct?

[Sy Borg]

I would like to see the end of pain and suffering, such as finding a more reasonable way for the body to tell you that there's a problem. Alas, our ancestors were not reasonable, and were therefore only moved to act decisively by the harsh sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, fear and sexual frustration.

Humans beings are taking their first faltering steps towards being capable of responding to reason. However, it's clear that:
1) en masse, humanity has a long way to go before it can be said to be broadly responsive to reason, and
2) the progress is not linear, with occasional regressions, eg. the Dark Ages and the current Trump Age.

When (or if) we as a species become fully reasonable, then we will be capable of engineering ourselves to feel no pain. We will no longer need to metaphorically be whacked on the head to gain our attention. With the right technology, a stress fracture might not register as pain, but simply as a message, "Stress fracture in x bone", with health recommendations.

As a being truly capable of reason, you would not need pain to keep you from putting pressure on the fracture, rather you might use a meter that rose or fell according to how much pressure you were putting on the injury. From there you could train yourself to act healthfully via painless biofeedback.

[creation]

I would like to see the end of pain and suffering, such as finding a more reasonable way for the body to tell you that there's a problem. Alas, our ancestors were not reasonable, and were therefore only moved to act decisively by the harsh sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, fear and sexual frustration.

Humans beings are taking their first faltering steps towards being capable of responding to reason. However, it's clear that:
1) en masse, humanity has a long way to go before it can be said to be broadly responsive to reason, and
2) the progress is not linear, with occasional regressions, eg. the Dark Ages and the current Trump Age.

When (or if) we as a species become fully reasonable, then we will be capable of engineering ourselves to feel no pain. We will no longer need to metaphorically be whacked on the head to gain our attention. With the right technology, a stress fracture might not register as pain, but simply as a message, "Stress fracture in x bone", with health recommendations.

As a being truly capable of reason, you would not need pain to keep you from putting pressure on the fracture, rather you might use a meter that rose or fell according to how much pressure you were putting on the injury. From there you could train yourself to act healthfully via painless biofeedback.

Is this 'seeing the end of pain and suffering' for every creature throughout the Universe, or just for the human beings only?

[creation]

I would do what I believe God is doing. That is He is just sitting back and watching to see how long it will take man to destroy himself. Not being either an atheist or pantheist, but believing He is contained in all creation, it could be that He is waiting to see if the earth will rebel against the damage man is doing to it.

A strange way to look at the world, as if humans were a panspermic parasite.

Humans are animals, evolved from other hominids, as much a part of the Earth as any other. Like the blue-green algae and the trilobites and the dinosaurs before us, we have qualities that give us an advantage over competing life forms. The algae's trick was cycling oxygen, the trilobites were the first animals with clear vision, dinos were the most weaponised creatures, and humans are the first animals able to perceive the broad passage of time (and plan accordingly).

Like blue-green algae, we are change agents of the Earth, not parasites or cancers. Like all creatures, we are developing that which will eventually replace us after we go extinct. None of this is Man's doing, not even Woman's, but the Earth's doing. We are not in control and we never have been, not en masse. Not ever, not in any time in history. At all times humans have effectively been led by the nose by the Earth - by environment - from day one. This is what the Earth is doing, not people.

All we can do is try to slow the change, to soften the blow of this reformation. Sadly, those holding the reigns are not the same as those impacted by environmental neglect. So, to start with, if I controlled everything I'd want humans to respect all life rather than treat it like nothing.

But you just said that human beings are not in control and never have been. You were saying that human beings are led by the nose by the earth - the environment- from the beginning, and this is what the earth is doing, not people.

So, why would you want to human beings to respect all life, rather thing treat all life like nothing, when it is not human beings doing this anyway?

From your logic and argument it is the earth - the environment - which is leading human beings, by the nose, to not respect all life, which is the earth - the environment- and to treat them like they are nothing.

I am just wondering why would the earth, the environment, lead human beings to treat the earth, the environment, like it was nothing, in the first place?

[psyreporter]

I would like to see the end of pain and suffering, such as finding a more reasonable way for the body to tell you that there's a problem.

...

As a being truly capable of reason, you would not need pain to keep you from putting pressure on the fracture, rather you might use a meter that rose or fell according to how much pressure you were putting on the injury. From there you could train yourself to act healthfully via painless biofeedback.

I do not believe that it is wise to replace (the potential for) pain and suffering with external perspective based solutions, e.g. a biofeedback device.

What is the optimum condition of a human? What is the optimum condition of a human in 1 day, 1 year or 1000 years from now?

It may be that the potential for pain and suffering is the foundation for reason. If that potential would be gone, I doubt that a pure logical replacement that operates based on a outside perspective (i.e. from knowledge from the past) could enable people to reach the future most efficiently.

The intention to end of pain and suffering is good. But from my perspective, it would be so because the intention could spur reasonable action to prevent pain and suffering with wisdom. The potential for pain and suffering remains but humans enjoy prosperity through reason.

[Sy Borg]

I would like to see the end of pain and suffering, such as finding a more reasonable way for the body to tell you that there's a problem.

...

As a being truly capable of reason, you would not need pain to keep you from putting pressure on the fracture, rather you might use a meter that rose or fell according to how much pressure you were putting on the injury. From there you could train yourself to act healthfully via painless biofeedback.

I do not believe that it is wise to replace (the potential for) pain and suffering with external perspective based solutions, e.g. a biofeedback device.

What is the optimum condition of a human? What is the optimum condition of a human in 1 day, 1 year or 1000 years from now?

It may be that the potential for pain and suffering is the foundation for reason. If that potential would be gone, I doubt that a pure logical replacement that operates based on a outside perspective (i.e. from knowledge from the past) could enable people to reach the future most efficiently.

The intention to end of pain and suffering is good. But from my perspective, it would be so because the intention could spur reasonable action to prevent pain and suffering with wisdom. The potential for pain and suffering remains but humans enjoy prosperity through reason.

The entire system is deeply skewed to the negative.

The best thing that can happen to you is not even close to being as intense as the very worst things are bad. Compare winning the lottery or having a child with watching all of your family be slowly tortured and killed. That is a huge gulf, and it is the reason or humanity's negativity bias. Reality is actually deeply negatively skewed. Consider how often death - the second worst thing that can happen to you - is seen as a "blessing", a relief from the worst things, agonising loss or pain.

The system ranges between sustained mind-blowing agony and great joy. I'd prefer a range from neutrality to mind-blowing joy. Given that every life ends in disaster - it would be nice for living beings to be sure of something beautiful beforehand. But it's brutal from go to whoa - even worse for other animals.

The level of brutality, cruelty and general awfulness meted out on life is way over-the-top, often inducing too much trauma from early ages to allow for character lessons to be learned from the hardships.

[psyreporter]

The entire system is deeply skewed to the negative.

...

The system ranges between sustained mind-blowing agony and great joy. I'd prefer a range from neutrality to mind-blowing joy. Given that every life ends in disaster - it would be nice for living beings to be sure of something beautiful beforehand. But it's brutal from go to whoa - even worse for other animals.

The level of brutality, cruelty and general awfulness meted out on life is way over-the-top, often inducing too much trauma from early ages to allow for character lessons to be learned from the hardships.

I agree that it is important to address issues with intelligence and that brutality, cruelty and general awfulness in life are unnecessary (or deserve work to make it so). I do not agree however that such can be achieved by pursuing a base level range from neutrality to mind blowing joy.

"Without the potential for depression there is no potential for euforia"

I believe that the emotion depression figuratively speaking reaches into infinity (in awfulness) while on the other end, euforia can reach into infinity as well. There is logically no bottom in a depression, and when you would pursue a neutral position, you would essentially be seeking a bottom with as a result that you would fall into the depression.

My foot-note was intended to display how the mindset could be changed into the opposite, to make use of the potential of depression to reach (the potential for) euforia. It shows that there is no bottom, but also that it implies something about the opposite.

[Sy Borg]

Consider the degree of awfulness. I recently read how there is a dog-eating festival in a part of rural China where they torture the dogs, claiming it improves the taste. Someone described a video where two men were laughing as they skinned a dog. Consider the rape of children in war torn countries, both girls and boys. Consider a mother in a refugee camp, watching her milk dry and her baby slowly die in her arms. Consider the number of animals whose final moment are being slowly eaten alive. Consider that you are hurled into this world, screaming, and some decades later you die, usually preceded by a period of unendurable agony.

Nightmares all! Any possible euphoria available to life is utterly dwarfed by the degree of horrors meted out upon the innocent, the gentle and the benign.

I should qualify the above; I do enjoy life and am absolutely not an anti-natalist. Still, it's hard to miss the growing corruption, environmental destruction and the partitioning of the poor. Certainly, in terms of evolution, animals have had a very rough journey. I like to think that the biosphere as a whole is emerging from a larval-stype stage of growth and obsessive consumption. Then it/we will shift to an adult, fecund form to spread Earth's influence to other worlds. In this scenario, suffering along the way would be a transitional condition, possibly (hopefully) just a problem for the immature stages.

I think agony is only needed to forge character for those leading unexamined lives. While I personally needed a great deal of suffering to grow up, others become mature via a positive path, not needing such pain to empathise maturely. In extreme cases, such empathy is easy for anyone. For instance, you don't need to be attacked by a crocodile to feel your blood chill should you ever see some poor person being eaten by One. You don't need to experience anything like that to "get it", to understand the horror for the victim.

If some sub-sectors of societies become more sophisticated, perhaps in the future those people (cyborgs?) will need ever less extreme triggers to understand and empathise, to forge good character.

Now, if I have the brain of a cat, I might need fierce pains to keep me from endangering myself. That is not so much the case for beings capable of reason. However, our nervous systems are not so different to those of distant ancestors living in the wild. So an unreasonable nervous system lies within a species capable of reason, and who would be sensitive to much more subtle stimuli.

Gosh, I talked a bit there. Sorry! Hope it's not too tedious.

[Sy Borg]

A strange way to look at the world, as if humans were a panspermic parasite.

Humans are animals, evolved from other hominids, as much a part of the Earth as any other. Like the blue-green algae and the trilobites and the dinosaurs before us, we have qualities that give us an advantage over competing life forms. The algae's trick was cycling oxygen, the trilobites were the first animals with clear vision, dinos were the most weaponised creatures, and humans are the first animals able to perceive the broad passage of time (and plan accordingly).

Like blue-green algae, we are change agents of the Earth, not parasites or cancers. Like all creatures, we are developing that which will eventually replace us after we go extinct. None of this is Man's doing, not even Woman's, but the Earth's doing. We are not in control and we never have been, not en masse. Not ever, not in any time in history. At all times humans have effectively been led by the nose by the Earth - by environment - from day one. This is what the Earth is doing, not people.

All we can do is try to slow the change, to soften the blow of this reformation. Sadly, those holding the reigns are not the same as those impacted by environmental neglect. So, to start with, if I controlled everything I'd want humans to respect all life rather than treat it like nothing.

But you just said that human beings are not in control and never have been. You were saying that human beings are led by the nose by the earth - the environment- from the beginning, and this is what the earth is doing, not people.

So, why would you want to human beings to respect all life, rather thing treat all life like nothing, when it is not human beings doing this anyway?

From your logic and argument it is the earth - the environment - which is leading human beings, by the nose, to not respect all life, which is the earth - the environment- and to treat them like they are nothing.

I am just wondering why would the earth, the environment, lead human beings to treat the earth, the environment, like it was nothing, in the first place?

Because evolutionary advantage does not care about comfort or wellbeing. After all, for millions of years spiderlings have been eating their mothers. Many species die after spawning. Why don't their lives improve? Well, some of such a species may end up living on after spawning, and in time they may be a different species. Meanwhile, others without that mutation might still eke out a niche with what is a pretty lousy way of life.

For humans, nature doesn't care that we survive best when crammed in small areas, driving each other batty. We survive and breed more that way. Not as bad as being eaten alive so I see that as progress!

So yes, I don't think we have much choice. If you polled humanity, asking if they think there are: 1) too many people 2) not enough people or 3) about the right amount, what sort of answers would you receive. I think almost everyone would like a less crowded, more naturally bountiful world with less competition to find work, accommodation or mates, etc. However, what is humanity doing? https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/. The population is still growing, and that's despite great losses of arable land already incurred.

However, the more people there are, the more geniuses exist to foster ever more advanced genetic and materials engineering, AI and space programs. So we are - whether we like it or not - creating a world that will have ever more dense city hubs, with ever more desolate outlands. A future where space will be ever more probed and exploited.

[psyreporter]

I think agony is only needed to forge character for those leading unexamined lives. While I personally needed a great deal of suffering to grow up, others become mature via a positive path, not needing such pain to empathise maturely. In extreme cases, such empathy is easy for anyone. For instance, you don't need to be attacked by a crocodile to feel your blood chill should you ever see some poor person being eaten by One. You don't need to experience anything like that to "get it", to understand the horror for the victim.

"You cannot drift towards success on a cloud. Life is a fight."

I believe that emotions and pain connect a being with a successful future. I agree that agony isn't needed because it can be prevented with wisdom, and that humans or animals who grow up in prosperity without every being subject to suffering can empathise maturely because they are connected to the potential that lies within them. Reason appears to rise from the potential for pain and other emotions. I believe that it would be unwise to remove that potential. I believe that the potential can be tapped to achieve exceptional performance in life.

The establishment of knowledge for the capacity to lead an examined life requires actional events to have taken place. Therefore it cannot be a guide for leading animals or beings capable of reason into the future. One can learn from the past, but it cannot determine one's future. Emotions therefore may remain vital for the next 1000 years.

[Sculptor1]

But are you "a God"? The question asked, IF you had the 'power of' a God.

How do you know 'a God' never has to feel that their actions are cruel?

Coz he's a god init!

[Sculptor1]

But from what you have written here one might think that you, yourself, believe that you do not do cruel things, nor that you feel joy in cruelty, and that, from your perspective, it is only "others" who are cruel and feel joy from cruelty, correct?

Seriously I think you are over-thinking this.
Maybe you'd be better off thinking about having a super-power, and what you'd do with it.

Do you doubt that some people enjoy cruelty?

[Sy Borg]

I think agony is only needed to forge character for those leading unexamined lives. While I personally needed a great deal of suffering to grow up, others become mature via a positive path, not needing such pain to empathise maturely. In extreme cases, such empathy is easy for anyone. For instance, you don't need to be attacked by a crocodile to feel your blood chill should you ever see some poor person being eaten by One. You don't need to experience anything like that to "get it", to understand the horror for the victim.

"You cannot drift towards success on a cloud. Life is a fight."

I believe that emotions and pain connect a being with a successful future. I agree that agony isn't needed because it can be prevented with wisdom, and that humans or animals who grow up in prosperity without every being subject to suffering can empathise maturely because they are connected to the potential that lies within them. Reason appears to rise from the potential for pain and other emotions. I believe that it would be unwise to remove that potential. I believe that the potential can be tapped to achieve exceptional performance in life.

The establishment of knowledge for the capacity to lead an examined life requires actional events to have taken place. Therefore it cannot be a guide for leading animals or beings capable of reason into the future. One can learn from the past, but it cannot determine one's future. Emotions therefore may remain vital for the next 1000 years.

Is all that horror worth it to reaching our potential? Not if one can achieve the same without unbearable suffering. We know there are people with sound genetics, who enjoyed an excellent, balanced upbringing and a general tendency to be wise. These can point to the future as surely as Nietzsche's Ubermensch, as surely as the idea of "god".

These are ideals that draw us forward. Most people ultimately want one thing. Peace. That is, freedom from great suffering. Still, it's hard to argue your point that suffering - blunt and brutal tool that it is - may continue to drive us for another 1,000 years or more.

Whether suffering remains necessary to personal growth or just an unfortunate and persistent vestigial trait, is another matter. Agony may have been be needed to push simpler animals and incurious humans into positive action and understanding. However, as above, there are inspiring and happy people in this world who can show us how great achievement and decency can be driven by clarity rather than agony.

[LuckyR]

"You cannot drift towards success on a cloud. Life is a fight."

I believe that emotions and pain connect a being with a successful future. I agree that agony isn't needed because it can be prevented with wisdom, and that humans or animals who grow up in prosperity without every being subject to suffering can empathise maturely because they are connected to the potential that lies within them. Reason appears to rise from the potential for pain and other emotions. I believe that it would be unwise to remove that potential. I believe that the potential can be tapped to achieve exceptional performance in life.

The establishment of knowledge for the capacity to lead an examined life requires actional events to have taken place. Therefore it cannot be a guide for leading animals or beings capable of reason into the future. One can learn from the past, but it cannot determine one's future. Emotions therefore may remain vital for the next 1000 years.

Is all that horror worth it to reaching our potential? Not if one can achieve the same without unbearable suffering. We know there are people with sound genetics, who enjoyed an excellent, balanced upbringing and a general tendency to be wise. These can point to the future as surely as Nietzsche's Ubermensch, as surely as the idea of "god".

These are ideals that draw us forward. Most people ultimately want one thing. Peace. That is, freedom from great suffering. Still, it's hard to argue your point that suffering - blunt and brutal tool that it is - may continue to drive us for another 1,000 years or more.

Whether suffering remains necessary to personal growth or just an unfortunate and persistent vestigial trait, is another matter. Agony may have been be needed to push simpler animals and incurious humans into positive action and understanding. However, as above, there are inspiring and happy people in this world who can show us how great achievement and decency can be driven by clarity rather than agony.

I recently became aware of the role of fear of predation's role in the environment. True, fear of agony is not the same thing as agony, but it is pretty difficult to imagine the fear (a positive, essential factor) from the agony itself (proposed to be a negative).

I am referring specifically to the role of "keystone" species in their environment. Keystones, such as big mouth bass in a stream, keep the balance by predating minnows so the stream doesn't degrade into a desert occupied by minnows alone. When studied, the effect of the bass goes beyond controlling the number of minnows, by inducing fear of predation, the minnow's skittish, prey-like behavior keeps them from over grazing single areas, so their impact on the stream is evenly distributed and the stream attains optimal health.

[psyreporter]

Is all that horror worth it to reaching our potential? Not if one can achieve the same without unbearable suffering. We know there are people with sound genetics, who enjoyed an excellent, balanced upbringing and a general tendency to be wise. These can point to the future as surely as Nietzsche's Ubermensch, as surely as the idea of "god".

"Good" may be partly in the eye of the beholder. Would you consider the life of Stephen Hawking "good"? He is a person with a hereditary genetic disease but his contribution to humanity could be considered of great value.

When considering, even if someone like Stephen Hawking suffered from great depressive emotions, would that matter when his contribution can be estimated to be of great value for human existence? What is value and what could be the true meaning of an emotion for an individual who does not have the ability to look back at itself while living? If depression creates value, it may be possible learn to appreciate the value of it and by doing so turn it into the potential for euphoria (just the idea would be sufficient, as it will be delivering results).

When you put in a great effort to complete a work, e.g. a art project, is it not that the great suffering (effort) to reach a beautiful completion, a result, is worth it? Would the artwork hold any value or meaning when you wouldn't need to invest such an effort?

I agree that agony is not needed, but merely so because wisdom can spur work to create prosperity. Such a situation cannot be a end by itself. The potential for agony gives rise to the motivation to (everlastingly) discover the required wisdom to serve life in the best way. To survive and to prosper.