Relatively ancient and inactive
You're just wrong, Krayzee.
I find it hilarious that after what you saw BeDazed write about executing a country's citizens for a leader's error or what IP wrote in the last thread about nuking Africa, you still single me out for eugenics. Grow up.
One can't change the world as the head of the nation - or, at least, I'm too lazy to specify how I'll go from being the dictator of Nigeria to dictator of the world, so I'll assume I'm dictator of the world.
1) Eugenics. I believe that genes play a large part in the intelligence of a population. I read a book that tried to popularize unorthodox applications of statistical analysis (Freakonomics, or Freakonomics 2) where the author cited a comprehensive study of 20,000 children within the United States, and he particularly noted how, through adoption, it was possible to come to the conclusion that its the genes of the original parents (based on their occupation and income), more than the adoptive parents, affected how the child will turn out. Though even I don't completely believe that upbringing is as irrelevant as portrayed in that book, I believe intellect, deformities and the like to be as good a place to start as any to depopulate the Earth. Whether through sterilization or mass murder (Sterilization means I'm not Hitler, so let's go with that), it can be done. The top 2% of the population intellect-wise (taking into account things like deformities, hereditary diseases, etc) is allowed and encouraged to have as many children as they please. Top 10% are allowed and encouraged to have up to three children. Top 20% can have two, top 50% can have one. Bottom 50% of the world's population can have no children. Now, were I dictator, I'd definitely set up a commission to analyze how many children the best would want to have, etc, to fine-tune these numbers to maximize population intellect-index while allowing for gradual depopulation. Additionally, I understand that we have no perfect way to measure intellect as of now; however, it doesn't have to be perfect, and I don't have the resources of a dictator to tell you what the ideal measurement would be right now.
2) Greatly increase taxation on the rich. No one needs an income of more than $500,000 (except a top 2% person with 50 children; that would, however, be accounted for).
3) Fat Tax. I covered and debated this topic in depth in the topic "Obesity" (read it, it's funny). Basically, we tax unneeded, bad food/drinks like burgers or soda for 200% of what they're worth (again, I don't have the resources of a dictator to give the ideal number) to prevent obesity. Additionally, have a separate part where people are checked up on while on work and if they're overweight, they will be fined a certain amount. Yearly check.
4) Harsher punishment for crimes, up to and including torture. Mass murderers are tortured; torturers are tortured. I don't want to get into too much detail, but I think that the harsher the law, the less crime we'll have.
5) Invest very heavily into further development of "green" energy production (focus on nuclear), architectural efficiency, military/space technology. Once the threat of a nuclear war is eliminated and one government's in control, we should focus on sustainability of our civilization and the ability to defend ourself against extraterrestrial threats (basically, asteroids and aliens. Yep, too many movies).
6) Once the technology and everything is thought-through, start the implementation of a command economy run by computers. I've read about this before; the USSR didn't want to use computers because of how closely that mirrored how the West was using them (sounds iffy to me, but that's what I recall reading), and a South American experiment in using a computer to run a country was ruined by a military coup (I cannot recall which, unfortunately). Basically, when supercomputers get fast and strong enough, they can be used to run a command economy in a very efficient way. It can be more efficient than capitalism, because you don't have several organizations/companies working simultaneously on what is essentially the same technology; you don't have human error, irrationality or corruption siphoning capital. If it can be properly executed, I believe that a supercomputer can be the best way to run the economy, though I don't have many specifics. However, if we're going to be run by a supercomputer... I want to transfer my consciousness to it, 'enslave' humanity, and live forever as the benevolent ruler and conquerer of galaxies.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 30 2010, 5:14 am by Centreri.
None.