Reading other comments, I note my thoughts on the undesirability of extrapolation have largely been addressed elsewhere already.
Current thoughts on giving higher preference to a subset:
Though one would be happy with a world reworked to fit one’s personal system of values, others likely would not be. Though selected others would be happy with a world reworked to fit their agreed system of values, others likely would not be. Moreover, assuming changes over time, even if such is held to a certain degree at one point in time, changes based on that may turn out to be regrettable.
Given that one’s own position (and those of any other subset) are liable to be riddled with flaws, multiplying may dictate that some alternative to the current situation in the world be provided, but it does not necessarily dictate that one must impose one subset’s values on the rest of the world to the opposition of that rest of the world.
Imposition of peace on those filled with hatred who thickly desire war results in a worsening of those individuals’ situation. Imposition of war on those filled with love who strongly esire peace results in a worsening of those individuals’ situation. Taking it as given that each subset’s ideal outcome differs significantly from that of every other subset in the world, any overall change according to the will of one subset seems liable to yield more opposition and resentment than it does approval and gratitude.
Notably, when thinking up a movement worth supporting, such an action is frightening and unstable—people with differing opinions climbing over each other to be the ones who determine the shape of the future for the rest.
What, then, is an acceptable approach by which the wills coincide of all these people who are opposed to the wills of other groups being imposed on the unwilling?
Perhaps to not remake the world in your own image, or even in the image of people you choose to be fit to remake the world in their own image, or even the image of people someone you know nothing about chose to be fit to remake the world in their own image.
Perhaps a goal worth cooperating towards and joining everyone’s forces together to work towards is that of an alternative, or perhaps many, which people can choose to join and will be imposed on all willing and only those who are willing.
For those who dislike the system others choose, let them stay as they are. For those who like such systems more than their current situation, let them leave and be happier.
Leave the technophiles to their technophilia, the… actually I can’t select other groups, because who would join and who would stay depends on what gets made. Perhaps it might end up with different social groups existing under the separate jurisdictions of different systems, while all those who preferred their current state to any systems as yet created remained on Earth.
A non-interference arrangement with free-to-enter alternatives for all who prefer it to the default situation: while maybe not anyone’s ideal, hopefully something that all can agree is better, and something that to no one is in fact worse.
(Well, maybe to those people who have reasons for not wanting chunks of the population to leave in search of a better life..? Hmm.)
Reading other comments, I note my thoughts on the undesirability of extrapolation have largely been addressed elsewhere already.
Current thoughts on giving higher preference to a subset:
Though one would be happy with a world reworked to fit one’s personal system of values, others likely would not be. Though selected others would be happy with a world reworked to fit their agreed system of values, others likely would not be. Moreover, assuming changes over time, even if such is held to a certain degree at one point in time, changes based on that may turn out to be regrettable.
Given that one’s own position (and those of any other subset) are liable to be riddled with flaws, multiplying may dictate that some alternative to the current situation in the world be provided, but it does not necessarily dictate that one must impose one subset’s values on the rest of the world to the opposition of that rest of the world.
Imposition of peace on those filled with hatred who thickly desire war results in a worsening of those individuals’ situation. Imposition of war on those filled with love who strongly esire peace results in a worsening of those individuals’ situation. Taking it as given that each subset’s ideal outcome differs significantly from that of every other subset in the world, any overall change according to the will of one subset seems liable to yield more opposition and resentment than it does approval and gratitude.
Notably, when thinking up a movement worth supporting, such an action is frightening and unstable—people with differing opinions climbing over each other to be the ones who determine the shape of the future for the rest.
What, then, is an acceptable approach by which the wills coincide of all these people who are opposed to the wills of other groups being imposed on the unwilling?
Perhaps to not remake the world in your own image, or even in the image of people you choose to be fit to remake the world in their own image, or even the image of people someone you know nothing about chose to be fit to remake the world in their own image.
Perhaps a goal worth cooperating towards and joining everyone’s forces together to work towards is that of an alternative, or perhaps many, which people can choose to join and will be imposed on all willing and only those who are willing.
For those who dislike the system others choose, let them stay as they are. For those who like such systems more than their current situation, let them leave and be happier.
Leave the technophiles to their technophilia, the… actually I can’t select other groups, because who would join and who would stay depends on what gets made. Perhaps it might end up with different social groups existing under the separate jurisdictions of different systems, while all those who preferred their current state to any systems as yet created remained on Earth.
A non-interference arrangement with free-to-enter alternatives for all who prefer it to the default situation: while maybe not anyone’s ideal, hopefully something that all can agree is better, and something that to no one is in fact worse.
(Well, maybe to those people who have reasons for not wanting chunks of the population to leave in search of a better life..? Hmm.)