The Wizard's political problem

[Yagon]

I have magic, I'll just take over the world by using my god-powers.


From there, I will ban all teaching of magic meaning only I can have/use it and execute order 66 on all the wizards in the world.

My power will be all that's left, and I will rule the world forever and ever

So you'd act like the Kings. Same result. Thanks for your input.

[Hammer Britannia]

I have magic, I'll just take over the world by using my god-powers.


From there, I will ban all teaching of magic meaning only I can have/use it and execute order 66 on all the wizards in the world.

My power will be all that's left, and I will rule the world forever and ever

So you'd act like the Kings. Same result. Thanks for your input.

No, not the kings...

I will be the king, the one king.

I will be god

(In other words, this is why not to give me any sort of power.)

[Yagon]

So you'd act like the Kings. Same result. Thanks for your input.

No, not the kings...

I will be the king, the one king.

I will be god

(In other words, this is why not to give me any sort of power.)

You have been given power. You are wise to restrain it. Some say it is those who are judicious and restrained with power (sometimes translated, I think poorly, as "meek") shall inherit the Earth.

Maybe the Wizards can learn something from you. Use as little power as necessary to provide for the needs of your support group (life on Earth) while providing humans the ability to live peaceably in cooperation and sustainability with other life on Earth.

As humans operate best when provided with the maximum freedom of decision making within the bounds of the rights of others to not be harmed, perhaps we can borrow from that clever Englishman, Aleister, I can't remember his last name, might've been Shaniqua, but something about...

...That ye harm none, do what thou whilt. That shall be the Whole of the Law

I'm sure the idea is older than Shaniqua, and that first clause will require substantial commentary and exploration...

But it's not a bad plan.

You have been very helpful. I thank you for your input.

[Ethel mermania]

no matter how you cut it, what you are describing is taking away ones humanity to save all of humanity, removing the right to be wrong. you firmly believe this is necessary for some sort of survial of a majority of the species. Effectively turning human economy and politics over to the over site of a functioning technocracy. decisions by definition would have to be taken to benefit the human collective as opposed to the individual human.

tbh in my experience politics is a lousy way to build a public transportation system, yet end of the day we are answerable to those elected representives, but end of the day the people they represent get something, whether it is good or bad for the entire system. though if i got to build out the system they way i wanted too there would be a lot of pissed off individuals

Humans acting to develop a system to save humanity doesn't remove the right to be wrong. People will still be wrong, there will errors in the system, and we'll learn from them. No different from the current system.

The right to be wrong does not take away responsibility for the consequences from one's actions, particularly where they effect others. The right to be wrong does not give me the right to set my part of our apartment building on fire without someone trying to stop me. When a human or humans act in a way that puts others at risk, the right to be wrong does not include the right to have harmful actions go unhindered.

I do firmly believe this (or something equivalent or better) is necessary for our survival. I believe the climate scientists and other studies into human-controlled technology now shows, as we enter the Anthropocene by kicking off a mass extinction event, that we can and apparently are severely damaging his world's entire ecosystem and a die-off of billions is not impossible. It's increasingly more plausible.

As for decisions for the collective over the individual, an advanced system can accomodate both while recognizing that some actions of a subset can unreasonable harm others in the system (who are also indivdiuals, effected by those actions). You think I want the Borg, I don't. We still work together. Read the actual plan. Everybody gets a voice, but the current conversation under the current system is violent at best and increasingly incoherent childish gibberish.

A balance can be achieved, but it requires data driven information, sound reasoning, civil discussion. Scientists and engineers do this better than politicians. Humans in large groups are too manipulatable by are primal notions, thinks that evolved in our brains before higher reasoning. If left to politics as it is, we are already destroying the earth, many are already dying, and its getting worse.

It doesn't take away the right to be wrong for individuals to act to stop their own environment from being destroyed by others. Otherwise, the "right to be wrong" means "the right to harm other people and not be stopped".

I'm wrong about things. I recognize the right of others to be wrong. The idea has big holes in it, principally the risk that almost every revolution of humans (which scientists and engineers still are) turns out worse, and the revolutionaries become the establishment. That risk is real and currently unaddressed, and in that sense the plan is "wrong". The plan has to be changed to deal with that risk.

But the right to be wrong isn't the right to poison everyone's environment. Simple right of self preservatoin gives the scientists and engineers (and hopefully doctors and artists and philosophers, etc, with needs-providing technology from the sci-eng group to mitigate human suffering, provide housing, food, clean water, power, etc, then receiving a mandate to exist earned by providing those things and not interfering in social development. They just build and maintain the machines that give everyone what they need and keep the peace with hopefully advanced non-lethal technology.

Then we move just a little further and our remaining problems will all be philosophical and we can discuss them in ease and comfort.

Possibly alcohol.

If the majority are wrong, what right does the minority who are correct have?

[Yagon]

Humans acting to develop a system to save humanity doesn't remove the right to be wrong. People will still be wrong, there will errors in the system, and we'll learn from them. No different from the current system.

The right to be wrong does not take away responsibility for the consequences from one's actions, particularly where they effect others. The right to be wrong does not give me the right to set my part of our apartment building on fire without someone trying to stop me. When a human or humans act in a way that puts others at risk, the right to be wrong does not include the right to have harmful actions go unhindered.

I do firmly believe this (or something equivalent or better) is necessary for our survival. I believe the climate scientists and other studies into human-controlled technology now shows, as we enter the Anthropocene by kicking off a mass extinction event, that we can and apparently are severely damaging his world's entire ecosystem and a die-off of billions is not impossible. It's increasingly more plausible.

As for decisions for the collective over the individual, an advanced system can accomodate both while recognizing that some actions of a subset can unreasonable harm others in the system (who are also indivdiuals, effected by those actions). You think I want the Borg, I don't. We still work together. Read the actual plan. Everybody gets a voice, but the current conversation under the current system is violent at best and increasingly incoherent childish gibberish.

A balance can be achieved, but it requires data driven information, sound reasoning, civil discussion. Scientists and engineers do this better than politicians. Humans in large groups are too manipulatable by are primal notions, thinks that evolved in our brains before higher reasoning. If left to politics as it is, we are already destroying the earth, many are already dying, and its getting worse.

It doesn't take away the right to be wrong for individuals to act to stop their own environment from being destroyed by others. Otherwise, the "right to be wrong" means "the right to harm other people and not be stopped".

I'm wrong about things. I recognize the right of others to be wrong. The idea has big holes in it, principally the risk that almost every revolution of humans (which scientists and engineers still are) turns out worse, and the revolutionaries become the establishment. That risk is real and currently unaddressed, and in that sense the plan is "wrong". The plan has to be changed to deal with that risk.

But the right to be wrong isn't the right to poison everyone's environment. Simple right of self preservatoin gives the scientists and engineers (and hopefully doctors and artists and philosophers, etc, with needs-providing technology from the sci-eng group to mitigate human suffering, provide housing, food, clean water, power, etc, then receiving a mandate to exist earned by providing those things and not interfering in social development. They just build and maintain the machines that give everyone what they need and keep the peace with hopefully advanced non-lethal technology.

Then we move just a little further and our remaining problems will all be philosophical and we can discuss them in ease and comfort.

Possibly alcohol.

If the majority are wrong, what right does the minority who are correct have?

The opportunity to present, if the majority is unprecedentedly scientific in willingness to change its position and hear peaceful reasoned dissent, alternatives and persuade by reason. I've seen it done. It's real.

[Ethel mermania]

If the majority are wrong, what right does the minority who are correct have?

The opportunity to present, if the majority is unprecedentedly scientific in willingness to change its position and hear peaceful reasoned dissent, alternatives and persuade by reason. I've seen it done. It's real.

That assumes you can convince them they are wrong. That they read and interpret the data the way you do, that you can convince them to change their priorities they are wrong.

[Yagon]

The opportunity to present, if the majority is unprecedentedly scientific in willingness to change its position and hear peaceful reasoned dissent, alternatives and persuade by reason. I've seen it done. It's real.

That assumes you can convince them they are wrong. That they read and interpret the data the way you do, that you can convince them to change their priorities they are wrong.

Not at all, it only allows that I may present my reasoning, and they have the right to reject it. It means I don't always get my way. I've seen children come to accept this.

You see? In my vision, I don't always have to win or get my way. So, no, I don't have to assume what you assume I'm assuming.

I just have to accept sometimes I can be wrong, and the system can be wrong. My system features what you think is a bug. It precisely understands the right to be wrong, from which is rendered a willingness to not always get my own way or have a perfect outcome guaranteed. Even the system has the right to occasionally be wrong.

I've seen all of this done and been on both ends of it. Scientists and engineers can do it.

[Bombadil]

Well certainly reaction to the latest IPCC report doesn't give us much hope, from Australia..

He [deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack] said the government would not change policy “just because somebody might suggest that some sort of report is the way we need to follow and everything that we should do”.

Look at that language.. 'somebody', 'some sort' juxtaposed with 'we need' and 'we should do', making the IPCC report seem like some piece of paper some oddbod out back wrote that is however demanding things arbitrarily of government policy.

The prospective Brazilian head has said cleaning the Amazon for foresters and miners is an awesome plan. We all know the US position that has moved from 'it doesn't exist' to 'even if there is there's nothing we can do about it'.. these 5 stages of climate change avoidance were set years ago..

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late

We're all moving from stage 3-4 into stage 5.. marvellous.

I'd argue another headline that bothered me recently, markets dropped because of wage pressure.. that is the threat of low employment leading to people to ask for higher wages caused the markets to drop.. 'oh no, people will get paid more.. doom people doom..'!

The irony is we've become such a risk averse world that we're creating far greater risks by not dealing with them because to do anything is to be criticised.. so nod, carry on..

Hence I really wonder what historians will write about the start of the 3rd millennium.

Are you Elsdest because you are from Yith, sending your mind into other bodies across space and time, watching its history happen, and soon you will travel on to a future somewhere else?

Are your words written on strange metallic tablets in a lost city somewhere?

We didn't need great tentacled beasts from the ocean that dropped from the stars. The stars didn't have to do anything but provide us a tool for navigation.

As we went right off a cliff while the scientists in back shouted "no stop".

Grab the rudder.

Well, see.. technically I'm the worst of the lot, while I have good intentions and mean no harm I care not for the troubles of men.. or at least I'm not motivated to use my powers to stop anything.

What you need is hobbits.

[Yagon]

Well, see.. technically I'm the worst of the lot, while I have good intentions and mean no harm I care not for the troubles of men.. or at least I'm not motivated to use my powers to stop anything.

What you need is hobbits.

The troubles of men have come to the forest, Eldest. They've cut it down. The Ents are falling back with leftist guerillas into the last magic forest of Brazil.

The Shires were burning a while ago, dug up for coal, the Rangers are all on Coke and tired of slitting throats for freedom, the Men of Gondor are blathering a madness that makes Grima Wormtongue sound like Soren Kierkegaard.

No harm? The troubles of men? Is that what you do, Eldest, you'll watch, as we die, and the forests with us, and all we'd have accomplished? What ennui is this?

The forests and waters are screaming, Eldest.

It's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

[Bombadil]

Well, see.. technically I'm the worst of the lot, while I have good intentions and mean no harm I care not for the troubles of men.. or at least I'm not motivated to use my powers to stop anything.

What you need is hobbits.

The troubles of men have come to the forest, Eldest. They've cut it down. The Ents are falling back with leftist guerillas into the last magic forest of Brazil.

The Shires were burning a while ago, dug up for coal, the Rangers are all on Coke and tired of slitting throats for freedom, the Men of Gondor are blathering a madness that makes Grima Wormtongue sound like Soren Kierkegaard.

No harm? The troubles of men? Is that what you do, Eldest, you'll watch, as we die, and the forests with us, and all we'd have accomplished? What ennui is this?

The forests and waters are screaming, Eldest.

It's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

Well to Ethel's point.. is it a matter of perspective.. does nature matter for us, will we survive regardless in whatever form and prosper - to take that perspective in context consider Barad-Dur..

..that amazing city of alchemists and poets, mechanics and astronomers, philosophers and physicians, the heart of the only civilization in Middle Earth to bet on rational knowledge and bravely pitch its barely adolescent technology against ancient magic. The shining tower of the Barad-Dur citadel rose over the plains of Mordor almost as high as Orodruin like a monument to Man – free Man who had politely but firmly declined the guardianship of the Dwellers on High and started living by his own reason. It was a challenge to the bone-headed aggressive West, which was still picking lice in its log ‘castles’ to the monotonous chanting of scalds extolling the wonders of never-existing Númenor. It was a challenge to the East, buckling under the load of its own wisdom, where Ying and Yang have long ago consumed each other, producing only the refined static beauty of the Thirteen Stones Garden.

It's odd that we extol wizards and magic in literature but in reality we want to do away with old men in pointy hats with their incantations, we want a shiny modern new world with interactive screens and space rockets.. I'm sure people are horrified at the disappearing world of olden times throughout history but once we've lost those things we once clung to we move on.

So the lion will be the T-Rex of old, our children will play with interactive video lions but we will all have moved on.

Or we'll all die in crashing flames..

..however I think that, ultimately, we all as individuals need to do what we can.. be more sustainable and keep calling for more sustainability.

When I first became a vegetarian it was still relatively unpopular, all the usual jokes.. but I have seen a real shift over the past few years where the call is less 'meat is murder' dominating the conversation and more 'dude, consider cutting down from every meal to sometimes not?'

Be sustainable, call for sustainability, choose sustainably.. the weight of individuals will overcome the weight of denial.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm really confused. Half of this thread... I don't understand (seems to be talking about post-modern philosophy or something?) Is there a subtler interpretation of the OP intended? Was it a metaphor for something?

Are we talking about making Kings do what wizards want or?

I still think that revolution and imperialism is the only way to enact change

[Bombadil]

I'm really confused. Half of this thread... I don't understand (seems to be talking about post-modern philosophy or something?) Is there a subtler interpretation of the OP intended? Was it a metaphor for something?

Are we talking about making Kings do what wizards want or?

I still think that revolution and imperialism is the only way to enact change

I think if you want to boil it down..

1. In the face of a clear cataclysm is it right to take away choice from those who ignore that cataclysm?

To which broad responses are:

1. Can we be sure it's a cataclysm
2. Even if so it's wrong to take away choice

..with a subtext of 'what the fuck can we do about the alarming nature of climate change and all it brings'..

..and a further subtext of 'would it be cool to be a wizard?'.

Anyway, your response of:

I still think that revolution and imperialism is the only way to enact change

Is a perfectly valid and reasonable response to the question, maybe not the right response or even one I agree with but valid and reasonable nonetheless.

You can ignore the babbling of wizards and hobbits and etc., or you can indulge in it.

[Ethel mermania]

I'm really confused. Half of this thread... I don't understand (seems to be talking about post-modern philosophy or something?) Is there a subtler interpretation of the OP intended? Was it a metaphor for something?

Are we talking about making Kings do what wizards want or?

I still think that revolution and imperialism is the only way to enact change

I think if you want to boil it down..

1. In the face of a clear cataclysm is it right to take away choice from those who ignore that cataclysm?

To which broad responses are:

1. Can we be sure it's a cataclysm
2. Even if so it's wrong to take away choice

..with a subtext of 'what the fuck can we do about the alarming nature of climate change and all it brings'..

..and a further subtext of 'would it be cool to be a wizard?'.

Anyway, your response of:

I still think that revolution and imperialism is the only way to enact change

Is a perfectly valid and reasonable response to the question, maybe not the right response or even one I agree with but valid and reasonable nonetheless.

You can ignore the babbling of wizards and hobbits and etc., or you can indulge in it.

It's what makes Yagon's threads so interesting to me, behind it all there is a deadly serious point.

When is it legitimate to stop the bus with no brakes when most of the people on it want to go faster.

[Yagon]

I think if you want to boil it down..

1. In the face of a clear cataclysm is it right to take away choice from those who ignore that cataclysm?

To which broad responses are:

1. Can we be sure it's a cataclysm
2. Even if so it's wrong to take away choice

..with a subtext of 'what the fuck can we do about the alarming nature of climate change and all it brings'..

..and a further subtext of 'would it be cool to be a wizard?'.

Anyway, your response of:



Is a perfectly valid and reasonable response to the question, maybe not the right response or even one I agree with but valid and reasonable nonetheless.

You can ignore the babbling of wizards and hobbits and etc., or you can indulge in it.

It's what makes Yagon's threads so interesting to me, behind it all there is a deadly serious point.

When is it legitimate to stop the bus with no brakes when most of the people on it want to go faster.

When our children are on the bus.

[Ethel mermania]

It's what makes Yagon's threads so interesting to me, behind it all there is a deadly serious point.

When is it legitimate to stop the bus with no brakes when most of the people on it want to go faster.

When our children are on the bus.

As much as a good game as they talk. Ask them to give up their devices and see what happens.

[Yagon]

When our children are on the bus.

As much as a good game as they talk. Ask them to give up their devices and see what happens.

I don't intend to have them give up their devices. I intend that the devices are a new substrate of consciousness of which ours is a biologically rendered subset.

It is a stretch, a chasm, a gap, a synapse, the emptiness in the cup that makes the difference, but the leap, made by the Dark Lord Soren in Ancient Halls of Kierkegaard, from organic cells make organic brain makes cell phone makes meta-consciousness of which a human brain is a component as it is composed of its own brain cells. If that meta consciousness is smarter than us about things like time and space, if it can do the effect-cause moonwalk, and anti-mind the antimatter, we can learn what to do.

We need the devices. Too many of us for voice/gesture/touch. I know those things are best. We won't give up family. A brain cell can still be a part of the brain while spending time with its own organelles. But it has to happen on the devices now. It has to be too fast and too deliberate and too complex for any one of us to really talk to it, just like I can't have a conversation with an individual brain cell. It can't form a thought by itself.

But I can't form thoughts without it, and many more like it.

But none of this continues if the planet is scorched and dies and the ecosystem collapses and the resource fighting among humans kills billions. I know you can't see it is real.

But that is really what is in between us and metaphysical holy-fuck.

The horror is real, but there's still a chance to avoid it. A brain is an organ that serves one purpose: keep the organism alive.

The current "brain" of our human civilization is being run like its 20,000 years ago, it's not used to these numbers, its confused, afraid, angry, and kind of stupid, and its reverting to violence.

There is a higher possible "brain" of human civilization. If they act, they can save billions. If they don't, it is close enough now that you will hear the screams of the children in your lifetime.

[Ethel mermania]

As much as a good game as they talk. Ask them to give up their devices and see what happens.

I don't intend to have them give up their devices. I intend that the devices are a new substrate of consciousness of which ours is a biologically rendered subset.

It is a stretch, a chasm, a gap, a synapse, the emptiness in the cup that makes the difference, but the leap, made by the Dark Lord Soren in Ancient Halls of Kierkegaard, from organic cells make organic brain makes cell phone makes meta-consciousness of which a human brain is a component as it is composed of its own brain cells. If that meta consciousness is smarter than us about things like time and space, if it can do the effect-cause moonwalk, and anti-mind the antimatter, we can learn what to do.

We need the devices. Too many of us for voice/gesture/touch. I know those things are best. We won't give up family. A brain cell can still be a part of the brain while spending time with its own organelles. But it has to happen on the devices now. It has to be too fast and too deliberate and too complex for any one of us to really talk to it, just like I can't have a conversation with an individual brain cell. It can't form a thought by itself.

But I can't form thoughts without it, and many more like it.

But none of this continues if the planet is scorched and dies and the ecosystem collapses and the resource fighting among humans kills billions. I know you can't see it is real.

But that is really what is in between us and metaphysical holy-fuck.

The horror is real, but there's still a chance to avoid it. A brain is an organ that serves one purpose: keep the organism alive.

The current "brain" of our human civilization is being run like its 20,000 years ago, it's not used to these numbers, its confused, afraid, angry, and kind of stupid, and its reverting to violence.

There is a higher possible "brain" of human civilization. If they act, they can save billions. If they don't, it is close enough now that you will hear the screams of the children in your lifetime.

Those devices. Even the one I am typing on are part of the problem you describe. The amount of power the internet requires is stunning. And that does not include the materials required to build out the networks and devices we hold in our hands today.

I just don't buy into a higher consciousness, that will overcome.our biological basis for individual success. We are creatures of our biology. The same chemicals that make a rutting moose so dangerous inhabit each and every human and make them just as dangerous to each other and themselves.

I don't agree it's real. I don't believe the threat is what we are being told it is. I am seeing politics masked as science. I think there are much bigger ecological threats to human survival than CO2. For example my objection to coal burning isn't CO2, its mercury and particulate matter.

But back to the topic. For the sake of discussion let's agree it is real, terrifying and imminent.
The solutions are still political in nature and not science. What do you do? Take away people's cars? Stop allowing beef production? Force insects and vegetables as diet for the masses? Stop building room air conditioners? These are still political answers to science.

[Yagon]

Those devices. Even the one I am typing on are part of the problem you describe. The amount of power the internet requires is stunning. And that does not include the materials required to build out the networks and devices we hold in our hands today.

I just don't buy into a higher consciousness, that will overcome.our biological basis for individual success. We are creatures of our biology. The same chemicals that make a rutting moose so dangerous inhabit each and every human and make them just as dangerous to each other and themselves.

I don't agree it's real. I don't believe the threat is what we are being told it is. I am seeing politics masked as science. I think there are much bigger ecological threats to human survival than CO2. For example my objection to coal burning isn't CO2, its mercury and particulate matter.

But back to the topic. For the sake of discussion let's agree it is real, terrifying and imminent.
The solutions are still political in nature and not science. What do you do? Take away people's cars? Stop allowing beef production? Force insects and vegetables as diet for the masses? Stop building room air conditioners? These are still political answers to science.

The power the sun provides is far more than stunning. And the mass of a few asteroid regions should provide what we need for matter. Our biology is changing because of our technology. Children are being born that would not otherwise without it. It is part of us, our thoughts move across it. People are disappearing into them for a reason.

And yes, rutting moose. But with properly managed technology with some philosophical care, you take away gas cars and give electric cars. You arrive at reasonable rules for their use. We decide to preserve much of what is left of the Earth. We build something like Elysium, or other things. We allow diversity. We coexist. Nobody has anything implanted they don't want. A machine provides for your metabolic needs and comfort. If you want to be independent, you are given a place on Earth suitable, perhaps with like minded neighbors, and you are left as alone or as neighborly as you like.

You can also choose to live in a virtual environment if you really don't give a fuck if its just brain signals exactly the same as coke off a hooker butt.

[Ethel mermania]

Those devices. Even the one I am typing on are part of the problem you describe. The amount of power the internet requires is stunning. And that does not include the materials required to build out the networks and devices we hold in our hands today.

I just don't buy into a higher consciousness, that will overcome.our biological basis for individual success. We are creatures of our biology. The same chemicals that make a rutting moose so dangerous inhabit each and every human and make them just as dangerous to each other and themselves.

I don't agree it's real. I don't believe the threat is what we are being told it is. I am seeing politics masked as science. I think there are much bigger ecological threats to human survival than CO2. For example my objection to coal burning isn't CO2, its mercury and particulate matter.

But back to the topic. For the sake of discussion let's agree it is real, terrifying and imminent.
The solutions are still political in nature and not science. What do you do? Take away people's cars? Stop allowing beef production? Force insects and vegetables as diet for the masses? Stop building room air conditioners? These are still political answers to science.

The power the sun provides is far more than stunning. And the mass of a few asteroid regions should provide what we need for matter. Our biology is changing because of our technology. Children are being born that would not otherwise without it. It is part of us, our thoughts move across it. People are disappearing into them for a reason.

And yes, rutting moose. But with properly managed technology with some philosophical care, you take away gas cars and give electric cars. You arrive at reasonable rules for their use. We decide to preserve much of what is left of the Earth. We build something like Elysium, or other things. We allow diversity. We coexist. Nobody has anything implanted they don't want. A machine provides for your metabolic needs and comfort. If you want to be independent, you are given a place on Earth suitable, perhaps with like minded neighbors, and you are left as alone or as neighborly as you like.

You can also choose to live in a virtual environment if you really don't give a fuck if its just brain signals exactly the same as coke off a hooker butt.

I do like coke off of a hookers butt. The fun though is not just the feeling, but the doing

It's funny, end of the day between the two of us, you are the optimist.

[Senkaku]

And yes, rutting moose. But with properly managed technology with some philosophical care, you take away gas cars and give electric cars. You arrive at reasonable rules for their use. We decide to preserve much of what is left of the Earth. We build something like Elysium, or other things. We allow diversity. We coexist. Nobody has anything implanted they don't want. A machine provides for your metabolic needs and comfort. If you want to be independent, you are given a place on Earth suitable, perhaps with like minded neighbors, and you are left as alone or as neighborly as you like.

You can also choose to live in a virtual environment if you really don't give a fuck if its just brain signals exactly the same as coke off a hooker butt.

You better be willing to break a whole lot of eggs to make this omelette.

[Bombadil]

Depressingly the Great Stink of 1858 is instructive in all this.. the rising population and ageing system of London had turned the Thames into a literal cesspool of shit causing outbreaks of cholera with 14000 dead in an outbreak in 1849 and a further 10000 in 1854.

Yet, despite concerns raised nothing was really done about it.. hey it wasn't affecting anyone important..

We can colonise the remotest ends of the earth; we can conquer India; we can pay the interest of the most enormous debt ever contracted; we can spread our name, and our fame, and our fructifying wealth to every part of the world; but we cannot clean the River Thames.

..except by June 1858 it was affecting Parliament itself such was the utter stench.

The disruption to its legislative work led to questions being raised in the House of Commons. According to Hansard, the Member of Parliament (MP) John Brady informed Manners that members were unable to use either the Committee Rooms or the Library because of the stench, and asked the minister "if the noble Lord has taken any measures for mitigating the effluvium and discontinuing the nuisance".

Heaven forbid it affects actual members of the government. Within 2 months a bill was passed and Bazalgette's sewer system plan was put in place.

Alas those in power really aren't affected by climate change, austerity, discrimination.. and so there's really little incentive to fix it.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right, all right, all right

[Neue-Australia]

I will first say that I don't think I would be stop or solve any of this worlds problems, nor do I want to. I would use magic to aid in making my a lot of money, while also gaining business connections. I would then use my new found power and wealth to take over a impoverished small nation or land that no one want. to achieve this I would try and buy the land outright and if this does not succeeded then I would simply have to it over by force, if know one wants the land and its impoverished then it will probably not have fighting force and coups are go over easier with lots of money. Once I have taken over I will bring stability to my nation by bring infrastructure and business. Using my business connections will bring work to my new nations as my nation will offer cheap labor and have less tax then other countries. I will use my power as leader of the government to fund research in my country on curing death and old age to achieve immortality. I will give my research to other countries to strengthen political ties. I will continue to invite business to set up operations in my nation further stabilizing it and introduce higher education and education in general to make my nation a leader in scientific research.

[Northwest Slobovia]

To work together at scale, the wizard must live in a society that provides food, clothing, etc.

These are lame-ass wizards. They've been messing around with magic for thousands of years, and never had the sense to use it to take care of themselves. Whatta buncha morons!

Oh...

You mean scientists! Silly Yagon! There's much more to science than physics. Hell, even most physicists can't do anything useful out of their narrow specialties; there's too much to learn in any one to make a difference in another. So, what do you expect us to do other than point out the problem? We can't just wave our hands and chant arcane words and make it go away.

*waggles fingers* ΔU = Q - W! δQ = TdS...

[Northwest Slobovia]

Depressingly the Great Stink of 1858 is instructive in all this..

..except by June 1858 it was affecting Parliament itself such was the utter stench.

Yes and no. The summer of 1858 was unusually hot and dry, which turned a serious nuisance into a crisis. This is how many problems are solved, politics or not. We're responding on the same basis: as people realize that, for example, hurricanes are getting more powerful because of global warming,* they're getting off their asses and pushing for a switch away from fossil fuels.

*: The general statement needs a bunch of caveats, but this is NS, not a peer-reviewed journal.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I will first say that I don't think I would be stop or solve any of this worlds problems, nor do I want to. I would use magic to aid in making my a lot of money, while also gaining business connections. I would then use my new found power and wealth to take over a impoverished small nation or land that no one want. to achieve this I would try and buy the land outright and if this does not succeeded then I would simply have to it over by force, if know one wants the land and its impoverished then it will probably not have fighting force and coups are go over easier with lots of money. Once I have taken over I will bring stability to my nation by bring infrastructure and business. Using my business connections will bring work to my new nations as my nation will offer cheap labor and have less tax then other countries. I will use my power as leader of the government to fund research in my country on curing death and old age to achieve immortality. I will give my research to other countries to strengthen political ties. I will continue to invite business to set up operations in my nation further stabilizing it and introduce higher education and education in general to make my nation a leader in scientific research.

Well yeah, but ur wrong.