How would you run the world if you were responsible for it ?

I would nobely relinquish the responsibility on another person. Maybe the aforementioned troll.

How would you want them to run things ?

Honestly, anything other than a psychopathic dictator is good with me. Not Trump-ish

So .... what you seem to be saying is that personality is more important than policy ?

I would want someone who is capable of being a medium or a moderator between all of the micro groups and macro groups in the world so that there is peace

Is that how you see dictatorship, as being a personality type? Just some personality that people like to play up?

Yes NutNut, because the personality dictates the policy - especially when there is a dictator.

Because neither Trump nor you have posited sound strategies to improving the world but neither of you care as a result of your personality.

A benevolent dictator is my first choice. Just aren't many candidates. I'd probably look first to religion since they have the most skin in the multi-generational long game. If I had to pick real quick like.... Dalai Lama. Plus religion's 'there's more important things in life than material prosperity and consumption' framework fits nicely with the environmental and economic issues we're facing.

I'm well aware of the criticism I have received for wanting to establish enforceable boundaries relating to toxic waste.

The purpose of this thread is not to continue the criticism of my ideas ..... there is an entire separate thread for that.

The purpose of this thread is for you and others to share your ideas.

The difference between Trump and I .... is that I'm asking you what you want. If you haven't given any thought to the way you want the world to be run ... perhaps you're the one with the non-caring personality ?

As someone with an affinity for buddhist advice, I think the Dalai Lama is a great example of a warm personality. Most buddhism is not really parallel to a religion, although the whole Dalai Lama thing has a certainly divine element to it. That's a bit of a departure from core Theravadan buddhism.

Mine too. Like Abraham Lincoln was a great example of a benevolent dictator. Not perfect .... but he got results.

THis is your 11th thread now and you and I have had this conversation about 30 times. The last time I believe we talked about this....

What authority would your environmental accounting agency have ? How would it be different than the IPCC which already exists and is an advisory agency with no authority.

"Abe's dead, baby. Abe's dead"

real quick like pick someone.

The IPCC looks to be basically an advisory board.

My agency, the EAAOS (Environmental Accountability Agency or Something), would be more than an advisory board that falls short because it can't enforce its findings. Instead, the EAAOS would have the legal authority to enforce by setting binding emissions standards, conducting company audits, and imposing fines up to and including removing bad actors who don't obey, to prevent any company from side scrolling these guidelines.

You can say that it's a bit unrealistic or even a bit authoritarian, but I think its far better than some of the ideas that you have suggested.

Do you have to worry about being assassinated or is that option not valid for this hypothetical? I suspect that would affect lots of answers.

For the purpose of this exercise, let's take assassination off the table.

Let's say that your EAAOS wanted to ban bitcoin on the grounds that it uses about 1,000,000x more electricity per transaction than a standard debit / credit card transaction and its completely unnecessary.

Would you let them do it ?

As I said, there aren't many candidates out there. More near past, maybe Carl Sagan, Joseph Campbell. Near political the only one that comes to mind is Princess Diana. I guess some instinct is making me pick the benevolent aspect over dictatorial prowess as with FDR, Stalin... when granting someone complete power over me.

Perhaps instead of naming an individual, we should identify the qualities of that individual.

The term "benevolent" is rather vague.

I'm a big fan of Carl Sagan's, but I'm not sure that he had the personality to preside over law enforcement. I like Jon Stewart as a trusted public communicator. I like Bill Gates as a successful manager with a philanthropic orientation. I like Johan Rockstrom because he is expert on and focuses on the most important issues. But somewhere in there we need someone with the resolve to be an enforcer like Lincoln turned out to be. Gates was obviously an enforcer at Microsoft .... maybe he could do it.

AI will, and not by machines taking over but we will give the power to it as it would be the most reasonable decision maker

LOL.

AI is an oxymoron. It should be called Enhanced Stupidity.

What has AI done for us beside accelerate the exhaustion of natural resources and concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands?

OP, why did you just post the same thread again?

Is this for a different book?