• silverwhisper said on Nov 16, 2006....

  reduce (but not eliminate) the human tendency towards selfishness.
  
  ed
  

• missfickle said on Nov 16, 2006....

  Wipe out greed, it's a virus that just grows and grows!!!!!

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 16, 2006....

  I would make everybody more intelligent.  I strongly believe that two inteligent people can only come to one conclusion when given the same facts.
   

• silverwhisper said on Nov 16, 2006....

  sean, are you familiar w/ the friendship b/n c. s. lewis and j. r. r. tolkien?  both were highly-intelligent men who disagreed fundamentally on spiritual matters.
  
  ed
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 16, 2006....

  It is possible (however unlikely) that I'm wrong.  Spiritual matters are kind of tricky though as they have little or not facts to work on in that particular area.  Just like when it comes to certain things in politics like the budget and foriegn affairs.  I think every sane person is in agreement as to where we need to be/want to be but we disagree on the proper path to get there.
   
  Other than the fact that they were both friends though I don't know anything about the nature of their friendship.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 16, 2006....

  lewis was a staunch christian; tolkien, evidently, an agnostic (or perhaps atheist).  it was a matter on which they disagreed sharply, as you might imagine, IIRC..
  
  ed
  

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 16, 2006....

  I'll be the hopeless romantic.
  
  I'd ensure that each person had - and FOUND - their perfect partner. Not their ideal vision of a partner, maybe, but that someone who brings out the best in them, who completes their soul.
  

• peedee said on Nov 17, 2006....

  I would eliminate the borders of all the countries to make it a single world like the  WWW where we meet without going thriugh the security checks,customs, passport or visas.

• universalstar said on Nov 17, 2006....

  You asked such a deep and meaningful question and only you could say what you did.
  I would make everybody more intelligent.  I strongly believe that two inteligent people can only come to one conclusion when given the same facts.
  You dont want the two people to come to the same conclusion you want them to come to your conclusion.
  Seriously think about it, it was your question after all. Is that honestly what you'd change about the world?? I mean world poverty, starvation, war, corruption.
  There is an endless list of what could be done to change the world and you chose that. Is being right and conversing with somebody that important to you that put it before everything else in the world?
   

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 17, 2006....

  To be fair, universal, if people always came to the "right" conclusion, then on subjects like world hunger, perhaps the powers-that-be would all arrive at a comprehensive plan. So I guess more intelligence could have far-reaching effects on other problems, and in that case, it's not a selfish or small thing to wish for.
  

• Zayda said on Nov 17, 2006....

  Hmmm...but SR said that they would come to "one" conclusion.  That doesn't mean that the "one" conclusion would be the "right" conclusion.  Intelligence isn't the only factor that plays into good decision making.  Sure, it helps. 
  
  But then, what exactly does SR mean by intelligent when he says he wants to make everyone more intelligent?  How are you measuring the intelligence?  Level of IQ?  Book smarts?  Common sense?  Street smarets?  The ability to analyze and interpret and make the best decision for a given context? 
  
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 17, 2006....

  i think that wisdom is a better guide than intelligence.
  
  ed
  

• Bronx said on Nov 17, 2006....

  SeanRenaud: I would want to correct real democracy to mean political rulership of the people in the hands of the benevolent voting majority, not via an electoral college.
  
  How to achieve this feat?
  
  Perhaps, using a failsafe digital voting system, similar to the one Google  Adsense  uses to  track  user accounts.
  
  Identifying the benevolent majority would be the next major problem. Perhaps, this all a very tall order by me.
  

• curmudgeon said on Nov 17, 2006....

  Bronx,
  What if the majority is malevolent? Do they now not get to vote? Who determines whether the majority is benevolent or malevolent? The majority is the majority. Direct voting would give the majority total control over the minority - as in urban voters over rural. Simply by virtue of their numbers, urban voters could vote themselves every benefit in the book wipe out all governmental support for rural people. And why not? They're the majority.
   
  If that's your vision of democracy, you can have it. For all of its flaws, the Electoral College is the best balance between tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the minority, and rule of law.
   
  What would I change about the world? I'd reinstate the Sabbath. Except for emergency workers, everyone would simply stay home with their families or hang out with friends or neighbors for one full day. No spectator sporting events, concerts, restaurants, driving anywhere, whatever. Everything would simply shut down for a day.
   
  Everyone in the world would get a good day's rest, spend some time with loved ones, and global energy consumption and emissions would decrease dramatically 52 days out of 365. That's better than the Kyoto Protocol could ever hope to accomplish.

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 17, 2006....

  I'd get rid of organized religion.

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 17, 2006....

  LoL I ask such a simple question and get a debate.
   
  I do believe that our version of democracy is superior to straight democracy for a number of reasons.  I guess I'll start a blog for that too though.
   
  When I say inteligence I mean a combination of all things intelectual.  I do beileve that most of the worlds problems could be solved if people set aside whatever ignorant differences are holding them back and just work together and solve it.

• tbs230 said on Nov 17, 2006....

  I would remove anger.  Anger just clouds judgment. It causes so much grief and pain and destruction. Yeah, anger would have to go.
  

• anonymous said on Nov 17, 2006....

  ill make sure that no body poor in this world.
  
  

• anonymous said on Nov 17, 2006....

  If I could change anything...*thinks for a moment*

   

  I would make people more accepting of other peoples "flaws." That would likely solve the whole world peace issue and it would make me more comfertable around people knowing that they didn't see all my imperfections as flaws.

   

  This isn't really a selfish wish but it was however, motivated by selfishness. In truth, I just want people to accept me fully. Still, I didn't want to seem like a selfish wench so I had to assure myself that there was something in it for the rest of the WORLD. I mean, that was the question. If you could change the WORLD what would you do?

• Bronx said on Nov 17, 2006....

  CURMUDGEON: I think I meant that straight democracy should be corrected, just like SR rightly indicated.

  See my post with your blog title for the full answer to this.
  
  Sorry, SR: you too.
  
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 17, 2006....

  Do you mind leaving a link?

• Bronx said on Nov 20, 2006....

  Sure. Check this out.
  

Comment on "Change the world"

Currently tagged	hypothetical wishes rulership greed SeanRenaud Pathetic anger Zulflizo selfishness (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment