Here are some of the negative responses I anticipate. Try not to read them until you've thought about/posted your answer to the question.
I am posting these as evidence that I have given the problem a nontrivial amount of thought. Some of these statements are false. Others are true, yet their truthiness is not enough to stop me from believing that this is indeed the best path forward.
## This is impossible, so don't waste your time dreaming about it. This is science fiction/utopian/idealistic.
Look at Brexit and Republicans.
Evolution programmed us to assemble into small groups and fight others. We can't overcome our programming.
The most wealthy/powerful people in the world would face a reduction in standard of living, so they will never let this happen.
Humans are incapable of making sudden/massive changes to their political systems. AGI will develop much faster than humanity can coordinate, so it doesn't matter what we do.
Even if everyone in the world agrees, no one can/will do anything about it.
## No, the world would not be better This would be communism. It's never worked before.
This would be a totalitarian dystopia. I would hate to be controlled by the government to this level.
Whatever group of people who is in charge of maintaining the axioms will design the system to benefit themselves more than others.
Sudden, massive changes in policy are not safe. There is a high chance we converge on an incorrect policy that reduces the quality of life of everyone.
By isolating defectors, you are limiting their rights. This contradicts your supposed goal of granting all humans equal rights.
Unifying as a species marginalizes our cultural differences, which should instead be preserved and celebrated.
The proposed Global Database is a violation of my right to privacy.
It is against our nature to unify. Why should we defy our nature?
Axiomatic logic is not powerful enough to express the complexities of moral values.
Energy/entropy are not general enough to replace the dollar.
The logical conclusion of optimizing for minimization of entropy increase is to eradicate all life.
Humans without self-interest/group-interest will not be as innovative. We will decay.
The viral campaign only accounts for the opinions of people with Internet access. You will never acquire consensus from every human.
This proposal seems very human-centric. What about the animals, plants, and the planet?
Have you ever heard of game theory? Defectors will always find ways to exploit cooperative setups.
## You suck You are a selfish psychopath that wants to live forever, you don't actually care about humanity.
Your writing is incomprehensible. You use too many technical words without explaining what they mean.
Your writing is too vague. You complain about abstract problems and provide no concrete solutions.
Here are some of the negative responses I anticipate. Try not to read them until you've thought about/posted your answer to the question.
I am posting these as evidence that I have given the problem a nontrivial amount of thought. Some of these statements are false. Others are true, yet their truthiness is not enough to stop me from believing that this is indeed the best path forward.
## This is impossible, so don't waste your time dreaming about it.
This is science fiction/utopian/idealistic.
Look at Brexit and Republicans.
Evolution programmed us to assemble into small groups and fight others. We can't overcome our programming.
The most wealthy/powerful people in the world would face a reduction in standard of living, so they will never let this happen.
Humans are incapable of making sudden/massive changes to their political systems. AGI will develop much faster than humanity can coordinate, so it doesn't matter what we do.
Even if everyone in the world agrees, no one can/will do anything about it.
## No, the world would not be better
This would be communism. It's never worked before.
This would be a totalitarian dystopia. I would hate to be controlled by the government to this level.
Whatever group of people who is in charge of maintaining the axioms will design the system to benefit themselves more than others.
Sudden, massive changes in policy are not safe. There is a high chance we converge on an incorrect policy that reduces the quality of life of everyone.
By isolating defectors, you are limiting their rights. This contradicts your supposed goal of granting all humans equal rights.
Unifying as a species marginalizes our cultural differences, which should instead be preserved and celebrated.
The proposed Global Database is a violation of my right to privacy.
It is against our nature to unify. Why should we defy our nature?
Axiomatic logic is not powerful enough to express the complexities of moral values.
Energy/entropy are not general enough to replace the dollar.
The logical conclusion of optimizing for minimization of entropy increase is to eradicate all life.
Humans without self-interest/group-interest will not be as innovative. We will decay.
The viral campaign only accounts for the opinions of people with Internet access. You will never acquire consensus from every human.
This proposal seems very human-centric. What about the animals, plants, and the planet?
Have you ever heard of game theory? Defectors will always find ways to exploit cooperative setups.
## You suck
You are a selfish psychopath that wants to live forever, you don't actually care about humanity.
Your writing is incomprehensible. You use too many technical words without explaining what they mean.
Your writing is too vague. You complain about abstract problems and provide no concrete solutions.