Quality of Life impact: How much damage (or benefit) their actions (work, lifestyle, whatever) have done for the net quality of life across the globe. I figure anyone who drives to work is probably doing a little more harm than good, but perhaps they make up for it by being a good school teacher or something, whereas AI coders might make things worse … but mostly I’d like to see if ANY world leaders score in the positive.
Maybe controversial on Lemmy, but Gorbachev would have. The USSR could just as easily have let go of idealism as totalitarianism, and gone full evil empire.
It seems more likely they’d be split half and half, since every decision they make has to be compared against some hypothetical replacement leader.
kinda, but I want to see the result with no interest in their motivations. I don’t care if you’re a kindly gramma who bakes cookies for the neighbor kids if that is outweighed by your church donations that (unbeknownst to gramma) fund hate groups. Nor do I care if you spitefully convince your county/borough to designate your hated neighbor’s property a ‘wetland’ such that the land loses value and can’t be developed.
What you described is literally The Good Place’s scoring system. They even have a joke about losing points for eating a (really good) chicken sandwich, because buying the sandwich means you hate gay people. It is revealed pretty late in the show that nobody has actually gotten into the Good Place in a long time, because the modern world ensures all of your actions (no matter how altruistic) will basically always result in a net negative point gain. Basically, grandma altruistically baked cookies for the neighborhood kids, but the chocolate chips were made with unethically sourced cocoa, the fuel she used to make the cookies went towards polluting the environment, and she forgot that one of the neighborhood kids has celiacs and can’t eat gluten.
Quality of Life impact: How much damage (or benefit) their actions (work, lifestyle, whatever) have done for the net quality of life across the globe. I figure anyone who drives to work is probably doing a little more harm than good, but perhaps they make up for it by being a good school teacher or something, whereas AI coders might make things worse … but mostly I’d like to see if ANY world leaders score in the positive.
Maybe controversial on Lemmy, but Gorbachev would have. The USSR could just as easily have let go of idealism as totalitarianism, and gone full evil empire.
It seems more likely they’d be split half and half, since every decision they make has to be compared against some hypothetical replacement leader.
So basically The Good Place’s score system.
kinda, but I want to see the result with no interest in their motivations. I don’t care if you’re a kindly gramma who bakes cookies for the neighbor kids if that is outweighed by your church donations that (unbeknownst to gramma) fund hate groups. Nor do I care if you spitefully convince your county/borough to designate your hated neighbor’s property a ‘wetland’ such that the land loses value and can’t be developed.
So, major spoilers for The Good Place:
Tap for spoiler
What you described is literally The Good Place’s scoring system. They even have a joke about losing points for eating a (really good) chicken sandwich, because buying the sandwich means you hate gay people. It is revealed pretty late in the show that nobody has actually gotten into the Good Place in a long time, because the modern world ensures all of your actions (no matter how altruistic) will basically always result in a net negative point gain. Basically, grandma altruistically baked cookies for the neighborhood kids, but the chocolate chips were made with unethically sourced cocoa, the fuel she used to make the cookies went towards polluting the environment, and she forgot that one of the neighborhood kids has celiacs and can’t eat gluten.