Start with changing the financial system.

Everyone gets a type of benefit, and the incentive to work isn't just to 'get by', but rather to have a good time. Too much of the good life is restricted to those at the bottom, which exists in the current financial system, while those at the top are living the greater life with access to all the resources. It's not just the matter that they earned this life, it's that they earned it in the current financial system - it was sold to them this way.

In my opinion we need to delegate the good life to those who deserve it, and allow the poorer people access to good things.

Another thing is schooling - it shouldn't be so expensive - and it definitely shouldn't be a one chance thing.

Another thing, Gucci and other clothes brands technically owe something to the people for having the unfair ability to sell their clothing for super high prices.

Too broad a question. One should consider too that all people do not see the same world, the same problems or anticipate the same solutions.

Probably best just to take one specific issue and then tailor a specific solution for it. Effective solutions tend to be culturally specific and co-designed by the people effected. What works in the USA would probably not work in Finland, say.

The great challenge is not identifying problems and proposing solutions, the problem is getting agreement robust enough to allow for implementation. This is why some of our more authoritarian brothers think that a benign dictatorship is the only answer.

Thank you for your reply. I support free education. In fact, I support free everything. Let's ban money and let's ban private ownership. Let's have collective equal ownership of everything. The whole world should be one egalitarian and democratic country where religions are separate from the global government. Everyone should receive according to their needs and contribute according to their abilities.

I like that but I think money is natural and we should just reform the system.

Currency may not reflect money truly enough, one person's work may be worth much much more.

Effective solutions tend to be culturally specific and co-designed by the people effected. What works in the USA would probably not work in Finland, say. — Tom Storm

Surely, sharing would work everywhere?

Surely, sharing would work everywhere? — Truth Seeker

No.

I like that but I think money is natural and we should just reform the system. — Barkon

Humans didn't always have money. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money Humans have been around 200,000 years and money has been around only 30,000 years. I think we can do without it if we have transparency and accountability so that people don't hoard more than their fair share of resources.

Surely, sharing would work everywhere?
— Truth Seeker

No. — Tom Storm

Please explain why sharing wouldn't work everywhere in the universe.

Sounds naive. What is sharing? Give me an example of how 'sharing' will be implemented and by whom and what problem it will address specifically?

we have always attributed value to people's intelligence. What you mean is currency hasn't been around.

Yes, by "money" I mean "currency". Is there a difference between money and currency? English is my second language so I may have missed any nuance between the two words.

technically, currency is one of the ways money is expressed - like a physical points system. Simply gaining recognition is a type of money if it leads to your ability to gain something.

I agree.

great

We could calculate the total habitable land area on Earth and divide it by the number of humans and give each one an equal share of the habitable land. This would be an example of sharing. This would eliminate inequality in how much land each human have.

Unrealistic. Who is going to support that? Who is going to give up their land?

I will support it. I will give up my land to gain an equal share of the 15.77 billion acres of habitable land divided by 8.1 billion humans currently alive which is 1.95 acres per human.

Do you have any land or do you live at home with your parents?

I don't live with my parents.

I think your view is amusing and it is hard to imagine that you are offering it as a serious solution.

Sharing is not exactly popular. It is antithetical to most forms of capitalism. You'd need to deliver such a policy with a gun.

I would not give up my land, nor would anyone I know. In fact, many would likely blow the heads off any motherfucker who comes for their property.

So how do you intend to govern such a process? How would you deal with those who would not surrender their land? How would you manage the wars and terrorism that would arise as a consequence?

How would you manage the world government of millions of displaced people who have to move around with their families so that they can get their plot of land? How would you manage the gaps in manufacturing industries all over the world, created by mass migrations of people?

So how do you intend to govern such a process? How would you deal with those who would not surrender their land? How would you manage the wars and terrorism that would arise as a consequence?

How would you manage the world government of millions of displaced people who have to move around with their families so that they can get their plot of land? How would you manage the gaps in manufacturing industries all over the world, created by mass migrations of people? — Tom Storm

I can only ask people to share. I realise that those who have may not want to share with those who do not have. I am not going to do anything to those who don't surrender excess (i.e. greater than 1.95 acres) land. I can't implement my policy of sharing.

In the extremely unlikely event that everyone accepts my policy, to minimize disruption, we could make land ownership local to where one already is. So, if you are already living in Lagos, the global government will try to give you land in Lagos. I realise that this won't always be possible.

In my ideal world, all living things would be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and would own an infinite number of universes each. There would be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in my ideal world. Sadly, we don't live in my ideal world.

Assuming this political-economic 'diagnosis'

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/820342

the most feasible(?) prospects for 'treating the patient' (i.e. global civilization – beginning with the G-20, nation-state by nation-state), IMHO, maybe comes down to something like (in sum):

(A) economic democracy (supplimented by local time-banking networks)
and/or
(B) more speculatively: AGI-managed post-scarcity, reputation-based demarchy.

Thank you for your reply. Why would an Artificial General Intelligence care about living things?

Why would an Artificial General Intelligence care about living things? — Truth Seeker

I don't assume it necessarily would. For my scenario to work, AGI wouldn't have "care" about anything but philanthropically optimizing the infrastructures, or functions of the systems, it automates. It remains to be seen, of course, whether or not we can or will train AGI – or whether or not AGI can or will learn from our example ( :yikes: ) – to be philanthropic.

I understand. Thank you.

The old society had some good ideas. You would be permitted to have children if and only if you performed some legendary task of heroics or invented something society-changing or happened to be selected by random lottery. It was a privilege one earned voted on by those who proved their worth and intellect, not a right. If not, you were free to have a wonderful, dignified life, unless you broke the law, in which case you were banished to the wilderness, a de facto death sentence, but not always. It was going quite well actually. Until, through lack of foresight, enough of the banished managed to survive and became numerous enough to overthrow the ruling society. And here we are today. War, suffering, overpopulation, and all. Perhaps order will be restored someday. Until then, here are some, a bit more pragmatic, thoughts for your consideration:

Suffering, being a pronounced, elevated, and prolonged state of undesirable emotion or sensation? Many types of suffering are self-inflicted or otherwise easily-preventable. This would require removal of free will and personal autonomy in favor of government mandate over what a person can or cannot do and say. This would lead to more suffering, whether or not it ultimately reduces suffering writ-large. Other forms of preventable suffering, and biologically-related suffering (hunger, thirst, exposure to the elements, etc.) become equally as complex to solve. A scenario or thought experiment I like to go to that seems reliable is the "last man on Earth" scenario. What if, everybody, and everything other people invented, were to disappear, right now? No one to blame for anything, the world is literally yours and yours alone. Would you still not only eat by the sweat of your brow? Have dangers such as finding and maintaining shelter, avoiding predators, and sheltering from natural events or disasters, and even being entertained and not losing one's sanity? As you can see, it's not so simple. Sure as a result of the progress man and society has made, all efforts and struggles across the board should be lessened as in this case society is not the sum of its parts, but something far greater. Still, a world without suffering, is a world without personal choice and excitement, as if there is no risk for negative, there is no purpose or appreciation for the positive.

Inequality is another one. People will always be unequal in some way. There will always be someone stronger, someone smarter, someone happier than you, regardless of if we were all born with the same "starter class" as if beginning a new fantasy RPG. Because life is not an RPG, it's life. The cosmic role of the die decides whether or not we are born tall, short, strong, meek, or even disabled as well as into a rich or respected or large family or abandoned at a stranger's doorstep. That's why it's life. It goes back to the classic socio-economic questions: Should we cease rewarding people for being productive and ingenious and would this not weaken a society that does so where other societies that do not get ahead and advance in all ways, inevitably gaining the means and eventually rationale to overpower the former? Do we completely devalue the responsibilities of creating life to a "meh. I feel like having a kid today. Other people will take care of it so, I don't have anything else planned today, guess I'mma go do that now" attitude toward life itself leading to inevitable overpopulation? This would only increase suffering.

One man's punishment is another man's cruelty, and yet another man's mockery of justice. Goldilock's and the Three Bears, one bowl too hot, one bowl too cold, and but one just right. Some say punishment is too severe, some say it's not severe enough. If someone accidentally kills your child through no intent ie. drunk driving or firing a gun during New Years, you will likely opt for the severest punishment even if you discovered the perpetrator was suffering or perhaps experienced a similar loss whereas an outside observer especially one who never felt the same pain or is ineligible to (does not have a child) may wish to be more sympathetic as "it could happen to anyone and was a freak accident", etc. Even in a wholly fictional "perfect" utopian government and resulting system of justice with zero corruption, racial, social, or economic bias, something ran by an AI for example, it still can't be everywhere at once. Evidence can still be erroneous or erroneously produced (placing fingerprints or other evidence, or people flat-out lying in unison). So like most negatives in life they can only be greatly reduced, unlikely to be eliminated altogether. Such attempts to have done so only resulted in unfathomable amounts of suffering before ultimately leading nowhere.

Death is part of life. Health and safety is a factor. Again, requires government mandates and restriction. Should we imprison people found smoking or eating fast food more than 3 days a week in order to prolong their own life? Outlaw extreme sports or hobbies such as scuba diving, skiing, or mountain climbing? You see where it becomes difficult. Again, a world without suffering is a world without personal choice.

I do not think it’s possible to minimise suffering on global or personal level.

Life is meant to be hard so there’s gonna be some suffering in it. However a lot of it is unnecessary suffering created by war mongers who bomb their fellow human beings.

We need to evolve beyond our apeish past achieve global enlightenment somehow and eliminate wars.

Other forms of suffering such as food scarcity could be reduced by population control though this is just as hard as stopping wars.

You would be permitted to have children if and only if you performed some legendary task of heroics or invented something society-changing or happened to be selected by random lottery. It was a privilege one earned voted on by those who proved their worth and intellect, not a right. — Outlander

Thank you for your reply. Which society had the above rule?

I do not think it’s possible to minimise suffering on global or personal level. — kindred

I am sorry to hear that.

How can we reduce suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? — Truth Seeker

I do not think it’s possible to minimise suffering on global or personal level. — kindred

Suffering is evidently reduced by medicine or psychology, inequality by distribution, injustice by justice, and death is reduced by healthy, peaceful living.