I know this will come across as edgy and nihilistic, but I earnestly believe the world (or more accurately humanity) is beyond repair. Unless someone was given literal omnipotence to remold human societies as they saw fit, we're likely going down the shitter and the choices made at this point will merely slow down or accelerate the rate in which that occurs.

I don't think even 10 trillion dollars would be enough fix the grave errors western civilization has already made. For example: giving women voting rights when they still have the social and legal responsibilities of children, allowing leftover stigma from Nazi Germany to forever equate legitimate (and at this point in the game incredibly necessary) non-lethal eugenics with genocide, and devolving vast swathes of people back into the primitive ideology that dictates being "morally correct" should take precedence over everything else- including the survival of one's own country and even reality itself. These things are so ingrained in human civilization at this point that we're probably screwed, so I guess my answer is: research, create, and thoroughly deploy a human sterilization virus.

If I really HAD to somehow try to FIX the world, we could try creating a new country with its own set of laws and regulations, as we'd have the insane amount of funds to do so and it would be much quicker and less painful than trying to reform existing countries. We could also use the cash to appeal to the distraught people around the world to gather citizenry. Legitimate migrants, of course. Not "refugees".

Post edited on 27th Apr 2017, 4:27am

Buy myself some body guards, do some research on and invite top researchers and engineers to an all expenses paid conference on how to make the world a better place, put the money into the proposals they make

>>143
>giving women voting rights when they still have the social and legal responsibilities of children
To be fair, I don't consider most people in general to be responsible voters. In my country it's even the law that you must vote. If people voted intelligently based on reducing the influence of others on their lives instead of for whoever jerked them off the most, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

>allowing leftover stigma from Nazi Germany to forever equate legitimate (and at this point in the game incredibly necessary) non-lethal eugenics with genocide
Read Article II my man:

General Assembly Resolution 260 (III). Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily of mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

>(d) IMPOSING measures intended to prevent births within the group
It's only considered genocide if you are essentially kicking in someone's door and forcibly sterilising them, which I think is fair. As much as I might not like lots of people, they have the same rights as I do, and I would have mine be inviolable so I will defend theirs. If you were to give incentives for certain people to undergo sterilisation or what have you then it's perfectly a-ok as it isn't imposition, it's bartering. People would consider it a bit messed up, but nobody can pull you up for it.

>devolving vast swathes of people back into the primitive ideology that dictates being "morally correct" should take precedence over everything else- including the survival of one's own country and even reality itself.
I think that one should strive to be morally correct. The difference here is that I don't try and impose my morals on those around me. I live the way that I think is right, do what I think to be honorable and try and be as fair as possible. I daresay that many people are the same, we're all trying to just get by in this world and do the best we can. The fact that you hold the concept of nation so highly speaks of your own morals being focused in that direction. That's fine, but to me a nation is worth supporting only in extreme circumstances. In 99% of cases, it's just a tool to enforce the tyranny of the group upon the individual.

It's like what John Stuart Mill said and I paraphrase, 'if the entire world thought one thing except for one man, they would be no more justified in imposing their will upon him than he would be justified in imposing his upon the rest of the world.'

Which also sums up my views on how to fix the world. Use the money and try to find a way to get people to leave each other damn well alone.

>>145
>I don't consider most people in general to be responsible voters.
Neater does the US government. That's why voting rights were originally restricted to just white male land owners. Even after caving into demands from the common folk over time they still don't trust the people to vote for it's own leaders. As such we have an electoral college that to my understanding has representatives for each state with their votes being the only ones that matter. Depending on the state's laws, they may or may not look at what people in their state voted for and decide to vote the same way. In a number of states they have every right to ignore the popular vote and vote for who they see fit. In a sense, voting is just a means for commoners to ask the higher ups to vote the way they want.

>>145
>To be fair, I don't consider most people in general to be responsible voters.
While I also agree with this, to imply that the female voting bloc hasn't devastated the western world is naïve at best and ignorant at worst. Giving anyone power without responsibility is a terrible idea.

>Read Article II
This article was created after World War 2 and included a ban on non-lethal eugenics as you pointed out. That's exactly what I was getting at. Nobody saw non-lethal eugenics as "taboo" before Nazi Germany.

>I think that one should strive to be morally correct. The difference here is that I don't try and impose my morals on those around me.
The problem is that morals are not and never have been objective. There are very, very few codes of ethics that are universally agreed upon by all groups of people across the planet. And when you mix very different groups of people together, conflict is inevitable. Look at the United States currently: even people of the same race in the same nation WILL force their morals upon each other, using violence as a means of subjugation for non-conformity if necessary.

>The fact that you hold the concept of nation so highly speaks of your own morals being focused in that direction.
I think that's a bit of a stretch and an assumption. In an ideal world I merely see separate nations being respectful of each other as an easy means to "get people to leave each other damn well alone", as you put it. And I'd agree with that being a great goal if you could somehow manage it.