I wish for one electron to disappear from every atom. The net result would be that all atoms would now have a positive charge.
True, it would not only end all life on earth, but also destroy the entire earth. But everything would be positive.
Mandatory XKCD, sort of.
TL;DR
It breaks the whole universe. That’s a lot of charge density over a very substantial area.
I love that he never even touched proton earth, which would really release some energy. Not sure how bad the collapse of the strong force in that nucleus would be, but I can’t imagine that a proton mass 6x more massive than the electron moon would have any less spectacular of a result.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are plenty of atoms/molecules that have greater negative ionization states than -1. This wouldn’t even make everything neutral.
Captain Pedant… AWAAAAYYYY.
OTOH, if you shifted the ionization state of every single atom, then pretty much every molecule would end up flying apart. You can’t form H2O if hydrogen has no electrons at all; hydrogen becomes a single proton.
This is interesting cause I wonder if relatively it’d be like shifting every element in the periodic table one to the left, cause who’s to say neutral isn’t our current measurement -1, but the orbitals will remain the same hence the shift
Nah, two atoms repelling is not relative. They will do that in every reference frame.
For sure but we have no absolute charge measurements, really for all we know were super positively charged, but so are all our voltometers so everything balances out
No, because we’d be flying apart, or at least our hair would stand up. Negative vs positive are relative, but distance from neutral is not.
Charge and voltage are slightly different, maybe that’s where you’re caught.
To highlight this we gotta disect your answer a little.
Why does your hair stand up when charged? Because the relationship between each other is similarly charged, and the air less similarly - so its going to have the force of gravity, and those 2 charges affecting it.
If you increase both charges from our ‘neutral’ by one yes your hair repels itself greater, but so does the air around it.
Similarly if you were on a super charged planet/atmosphere, your hair wouldn’t stand up at all cause the atmosphere is charged and you are grounded to it - but the second you change your relative environment to earth you’d probably pass out from the discharge
Stuff stands on end in a vacuum too, though. I don’t know about the effect of the presence of air exactly, but the basic phenomenon doesn’t depend on it. In electrical engineering where you mostly care about voltage it’s convenient to pick a relative ground, but in physics Coulomb’s law is pretty unambiguous:
|F| = ke*q1*q2/r2
Where q are the charges in question, measured in Coulombs, r is distance and ke is a fundamental constant. For contrast voltage is energy per distance per Coulomb. If we were to add a constant charge to both sides:
|F|=ke(q1+1)(q2+1)/r2
|F|r2/ke=(q1+1)(q2+1)
|F|r2/ke=q1q2+q1+q2+1
You’ll notice that even if we assume no charge was present in the first place, the +1 means that now the two objects will repel. Doing the same thing subtracting from one of them, assuming they’re both the same, produces a difference of squares and will decrease repulsion or add attraction, again without requiring any charge in the first place.
The Earth probably does gain a very slight electric charge as it interacts with the solar wind, but it’s tiny and I’m not sure if it has ever been measured.
Simple. True empathy for everyone. Literally feeling what others feel
“If by allow you mean force…”
So every time someone stubs their toe, every other human would feel the pain? Everyone would be completely overwhelmed by all kinds of feelings all the time.
Apparently, the word empathy isn’t as well understood as I thought.
Under typical usage, it refers to emotions, not full sensory input. Think Deanna Troi from star trek.
I’ve never actually heard/seen it used to refer to sensory input.
And, yes, even if it’s “only” emotions that are picked up, it would be distracting. This would radically change human society. That’s the entire point of the question in the post. It would be even more of a change with full sensory input though.
Imagine a world where that guy that’s creeping along on the highway isn’t just making people angry, because everyone that gets close knows that he’s grieving so hard he can barely function. You feel that grief yourself. Or, if you prefer your interpretation of empathy, you can feel his bowels cramping and realize that he’s going slow because he’s looking for an exit.
Now, this doesn’t automatically mean that everyone is going to act with kindness. But it does mean that none of us could ever again just dismiss someone else’s state of being. We would know that the other person is a feeling being and that makes being cruel an entirely different proposition. Whe we would feel, just like it were our own pain, what our actions cause, it’s gong to make people slow down and think before acting.
If people are only able to respond in a socially appropriate manner as a result of literally feeling others’ feelings, doesn’t that mean they still only care about others to the extent that it affects them? Wouldn’t such a response still be rooted in self-centeredness?
Wouldn’t actual selflessness mean accommodating someone else’s emotional state specifically when you don’t/can’t identify with them? (Maybe more like sympathy than empathy?)
Sure, but the net effect is still the same. Giving everyone true empathy wouldn’t eliminate psychopaths and sadists entirely, I’m sure. But for the average person, that barrier to spite and cruelty would be enough.
I’m trying to focus this answer on something that seems like a really small change:
I wish everyone is slightly more empathetic.
I feel like this could give us a lot of small nudges toward being better people and a better society. I wonder if a small nudge could end up having a profound effect.
With a baseline minimum empathy. Cause damn, some people really bottom out that needle.
Yes. But i was trying to make my change small… which is, of course, subjective. For me setting an empathy baseline feels like more than a small change.
It probably would, butterfly effect and all. That’s part of the reason why I’m trying to evaluate why I do the things I do, trying to see how they impact other people more versus in my youth. It might be small, but enough small things do add up, compound even.
Everyone religious wakes up tomorrow realizing that it’s just a social club and none of the god stuff is real.
So in this scenario where you have a magical Genie, you would use a supernatural being to stop others from believing in supernatural beings?
Whoa dude. I just woke up and was not prepared for philosophy!
fight fire with fire eh
Who said the genie was supernatural? If I can see the genie in front of me and sufficiently measure it’s existence, then it is real and natural. “Super natural” literally means “outside of nature”, i.e. stuff that doesn’t have any evidence of ever existing.
OP said so.
OP called it a magical genie. Magic is by definition outside of nature.
If presented by observable evidence the supernatural exists in one specific case (the genie) then it is reasonable to suppose there may be other supernatural beings.
If this were a highly advanced alien with probability manipulating technology, that would be a different question.
Magic is by definition outside of nature.
A magician would disagree with you :D
If this were a highly advanced alien with probability manipulating technology, that would be a different question.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
If presented by observable evidence the supernatural exists in one specific case (the genie) then it is reasonable to suppose there may be other supernatural beings.
Imagine I was a person who had never seen a narwhal, and thus didn’t believe they were real; suppose I believed them to be supernatural creatures. So to prove me wrong, you bring me to an aquarium and show me a narwhal and say, “look, a live narwhal. See? They are naturally occurring creatures”. I could respond with, “well no, that’s obviously a supernatural creature, and now it’s reasonable for me to also suppose that unicorns exist!” Do you see any flaws in my logic?
We’ve hypothesized of a situation where we have an observable creature in front of us. At that point, regardless of how “magical” we believe it to be, it is, by the definition of “supernatural”, not supernatural. However, when it comes to supernatural beings that we have not observed, this genie has not given us any more evidence for their existence.
Happy halloween!
They would still pretend. And, though it would solve a lot of problems, it would remove purpose for so many people.
Well, when their purpose is to detonate themselves and kill as many people around them so they can get some heaven virgins, I think it’s a sacrifice we are willing to make.
Low back pain eliminated in all humans.
Wish granted! Humans are no longer born with spinal vertebrae
Ooh yeah, it’s tunicate time!
Eradicate all mosquitoes
People can no longer share or post something on social media unless it is objectively true.
In my opinion, this i̴s̸ ̷n̴o̷t̷ ̷a̸ ̸g̸o̵o̷d̵ ̸i̴d̵e̷a̴,̷ ̵b̸̟̂e̸̯͠c̷̞̕à̷͖u̷̼͝s̷̜̀e̵͖̾ ̷̲͗t̸͖͊h̵͔̿ē̷͉r̴̲͆e̸̥̚’̵̠͊s̴̰̿ ̶͔̇p̶̰̍l̷͍͆e̵̗͊ǹ̷̻t̶̫̾y̷̞̍ ̸̗̑ȏ̶̻͓̯̇̆f̴̯͋ ̷̪̀͝t̷̢̡̐̂h̴̖͛̂i̴̮̱̳̓̀̾ņ̷͔̯͝g̸̗͂s̴̢̀̑͜ͅ ̴͍̝̀͑̾ṅ̶͇́ǫ̷̐̽t̴̥͙̋͂ ̷̲̥̕s̵͖̞͓̑͝͠ṭ̵̋̚r̸͖͆i̸̪̺͆͗c̵͓̼͛t̴̡̯̄͘l̶͕̏̈́̕y̴̤̣͈̅ ̷̛̜̗̻̈́v̶͔̺͐͑̍e̵̛͉̮r̷͖͓̉ỉ̷͈́f̸̟̓̕i̴̧̯͎͒̅͒a̶̖͑̈́b̴̡̧̈́̿͠l̴̜̿e̵̼̻͇͝ ̴͚̈́̅t̷̘͕̺͋͂̒h̸̳͔̑ȃ̶̹̗͔́t̴̡̰̺̋ ̸̫͜͝͝ ̶̖̀ ̷̣̬͑̂̐ ̴͇̄̔͝ ̴̟̃̀͜ ̶̽̿ͅ ̴̠̿s̵̼͚̖͆̎̉t̷̳̝̜̅̾ĩ̴̟̈̍l̵̫̗̼̈́́l̶̥̪̀ ̶̧̪̜̅̍n̸͖͊͆̕ė̴̹͔̭̇̚ḛ̷̊d̵̛̄͘ͅ ̶̡̘̱͝s̸̰͆̍̀a̶̩̻̐ẏ̵̳͉̦ḯ̸̞̻͒ṉ̷̏ͅg̵̩͓̈́ ̴͍͚̏ ̴̭̘͐̂ ̵͙̤̻͐̋̊ ̶͉͌ ̴̬̈ ̸̡̄ ̴̗̼̌ ̶͕̐ ̸̪̄ ̵̢̿̏ ̴͕͉̗̀ ̸̠͋́͝ ̴̺͈͛͐͐ ̷͓̙͑͋͒ä̸͖̝͇́n̴̛̹̰̏d̸͍̗̓͋ ̷̯̫́ ̸͚̀ ̶̱̽̃̔ ̷̖̣̈́͂ ̶̧̉̇̾ ̷̰̊̂͊ ̵̧̤̊ͅ ̶̞̮͂ ̴̨̑̿ ̴̜͛̋̐ ̵͉̆ ̶̼̫̌ ̶͍̥͊̎ ̷̭̃ ̵̙̪͎̔̍ ̸̢̧̇͜ ̷̲̰̃̐ ̶͙̐ ̴̞͊̉ͅ ̷̭̟͔̏̉̃ ̸̨̱͂͝ ̶̫͈̐̔͝ ̷̧̹̊̈̈́ ̶̥̠̜́ ̷̰͍͌͂͝ ̸̹̗̀ ̶͎̱͉͗ ̷̣̚ ̶̛̤̱̈́̃ ̷̰̪̗͂̐͌ ̷͓̝̬͗̎ ̴̨̦͈̆̊̃ ̷̡̓͐̕ ̸̰̍̕ ̵̗̞̥̓ ̸ ̸͕͆ ̴͒ͅ ̸͙͌ ̸̢͛ ̷̙͝ ̴̗̈́ ̵͚̿ ̵̯̓ ̶͎̐ ̵̘̇ ̵͂͜ ̷̧̃ ̵̫̿ ̵͔̌ ̵͔̌ ̷̟͗ ̸̣̆ ̴̖̾ ̶̤͠ ̷̲̒ ̷̱̑ ̸̟͗ ̸͇̐ ̴ ̴͎͋ ̸̪̍ ̶̜̽ ̶̪̂ ̸͇̋ ̵̹̎ ̶̡̊ ̴ ̴ ̸ ̶ ̷ ̶ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̸ ̵ ̷ ̷ ̸ ̴ ̵ ̴ ̵ ̷ ̵ ̶ ̸ ̷ ̸ ̷ ̴ ̵ ̸ ̵
So would this allow you to check if something is true?
Well, the foundations of reality might make that a bit difficult when it’s a topic that’s indeterminate, as truth could end up being relative.
But yes, in our fictional genie reality, you could just try posting everything and then what goes through is objectively true.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
No more cavities!
As in teeth cavities!
Thanks for clarifying!
Not bum cavities or wall cavities, I feel they have a purpose.
Everyone is gifted with the ability to control their own fertility. You’re only fertile if you want to be. The only chance for pregnancy to occur is if both partners want it to.
I imagine that would cause a severe population decline, and I’m fine with that. There’s too many humans on this planet already.
This I like
Make everyone’s interpretation of “small thing” slightly more similar.
A ubi funded by a hefty carbon tax on big polluters.
I’m always getting UBI and UTI mixed up.
Urinary Bract Infection
Both are small things with huge positive impact.
Every one gets a strong moral compass that they can’t ignore.
Sure we won’t all have the same morals but I believe that most bad things in the world happen because people ignore morals and act selfish and only a small part of our issues stem from actual moral differences.
Edit: Seems I am much more optimistic than I thought.
Rates of religiously based terrorism would go through the roof. The problem is that people that, e.g., bomb abortion clinics believe that they are doing the morally correct thing, because it’s better to murder a few people than to allow those people to “murder” thousands of innocent “babies”. Likewise, you’d suddenly have people that are casually racist now immediately turn to full-on race war shit, because if you believe that nonwhite people are causing harm to the “white race” simply by existing, and you have a moral compass that you can’t ignore, then the moral thing to do is to prevent that harm by killing the people committing the harm, esp. when you believe that they’re irredeemable by virtue of genetics.
You could argue that “moral compass” means more than just a strong sense of right/wrong. Presumably, most people have that, even if we don’t describe it as such. I think OP intended something more like a “strong sense of harmony” wherein everyone has a shared common understanding of some greater good and therefore work towards it with common cause.
It’s still a fairly naive notion, but for an entirely different reason. Rather than self-righteous chaos, such a wish would lead to a sort of moral tyranny imposed by one single person’s preconceptions of what constitutes a moral life.
I think OP intended something more like a “strong sense of harmony"
Or, more succinctly, the wish was “everyone has my moral compass, and can’t ignore it”. Unfortunately, the foundations upon which people build their “moral compass” is almost as varied as people themselves. It’s one of the reasons politics exists, so that we can sort out where to draw the legal line in between differing beliefs, without resorting to the age-old practice of deciding who is right through a war which sorts out who is left.
There’s a ton of really shitty people with strong moral compasses they can’t ignore. Most of them follow faiths ending in ity, ism, or lim
Depends what you mean by moral compass. I don’t think anyone’s conscious tells them “man, we really shouldn’t be mixing these textiles”. They might feel guilty for breaking rules they want to follow, but that’s it.
Dude according to some people not straight cisgender people wouldn’t have rights and would be killed
This is a horror movie I’ve pitched.
Pull a gazilion tons of carbon out of the atmosphere, crystallise it into gigantic diamond shards, and drop them from the stratosphere onto the 95th percentile by wealth in each country.
Wouldn’t work. If there’s so many diamonds, they’d just kind of lose their value. Also, who are you gonna sell them to, if everyone has them?
Although it could kind of be a new currency that excludes the rich, making their wealth at least a little useless.
I fully agree on the premise, but I think it needs refining.
I don’t plan to use them for wealth, it’s just a nice stable form of carbon that’s sharp and heavy.
deleted by creator
Only to the people they’re aimed at.
Agreed, but looking in the bright side: it would kill the diamond industry, which is a fucking awful blight on the world :)
Why not have it drop as graphite. Could be compressed as diamonds or used as base stock for carbon fibers or carbon nanotubes or carbon future-space-filaments. More useful, more stable, and could be a more versatile export.
Not nearly so stabby, nor does it send nearly such a fabulous message.
Hate to be a killjoy but C02 is only one greenhouse gas and not even the worst one.
Per kilo, sure. But in terms of overall impact, I’ll lay odds that reducing the CO2 level down to preindustrial levels would be more effective than reducing any other pollutant.
Methane would be more effective than C02. Methane is the elephant in the room no one talks about
Metacognition becomes routine for humans. We are able to better de-fuse from our thoughts, and recognize them not as reality but as thoughts about reality.
deleted by creator
whats that
We all have thoughts in our head. They are the lenses through which we see reality.
Sometimes, we are aware of that. For example, we may realize we’re being prejudiced or that we’re being cranky because of our mood.
However, this uses up a lot of energy; our frontal lobe is very energy-hungry. So we spend most of the time thinking habitual thoughts and following habitual behaviors. We don’t realize we’re looking at reality through a lens. We assume we are simply looking at reality.
What I am wishing for is for people to constantly be aware that the way they are looking at reality depends on the lenses they have learned and habitually use.
Normalise the phrase: "I don’t agree with your opinion and that’s fine"
