Imagine if there were infinite planets, all able to support life like Earth and just as bountiful in resources if not even more. Now, omnipotent aliens have explained this to you and said that each political ideology/religion/sytem/group/whatever, such as Communists/Nazis/Muslims/Africans/etc gets their own planet to run as they will, but you cannot invade another group's planet because then they will smack you out of the sky and annihilate you. You can however colonize new, uninhabited planets, endlessly if you choose to do so for more resources or exploration.
Which group would you want to be with, and why? Which would be the most successful? Which would be the least?
kek, african americans would instantly overnight go from Black Lives Matter to "please sir can i come along sir, i'll be a good housenigga for my white massa, don't leave me here with these black niggas massa please"
Caleb Adams
So, basically Elon vs Jeff vs NASA vs space nazis.
Jose Sanders
>Elon >vs space nazis Uhh that'd be the same team.
Daniel Watson
So do muslim africans get their own planet, or are they on the same planet as the rest of the muslims? The rest of the africans? Does every group and combination of groups get their own planet? Does each tumblr gender get their own planet? If religions count, how about denominations of christianity? Can I make my own religion and get my own planet? If it's split along continent lines, how do you deal with the edge cases between continents? If it's split along ideological lines, how do you deal with almost nobody holding an ideologically pure position? Are the splits based on ethnic heritage or current residence? What about dual citizens and mixed heritage people? Your classification methods need much more explication before the question is well defined.
Juan Harris
Yes to all. There is enough planets to go around for everyone. The only requirements are that everyone must go there together with mutual consent. You cannot for example coerce African muslims to come with you if you are muslim, but if you both agree then it is fine. If you don't agree you will each have your own planet.
No groups are split arbitrarily, it is up to each individual to decide for themselves where they want to go, and everyone in that group must also consent.
David Sanchez
So you'll have a billion planets with ~7 people each then, because requiring unanimity grows exponentially harder with group size. There'll always be someone who disagrees with your blackness/christianness/commitment to communism.
Carter Jones
Yes exactly, in some cases. There are however people who wouldn't mind much at all living with others who have slightly differing opinions. For example, most Europeans get along very well and have a similar enough culture that they can function in a society together.
Cooper Thomas
Infinite possibilities means that somewhere exists a situation where I am god that makes all other forms of me god too
Jace Flores
The point is that some people might see the benefit of working together and compromising, especially if their alternative is to perish. But for the sake of discussion and thought experiment you can pretend that you magically have a population of ~100000 or so that magically agree with your flavor of communism or Islam. Which group would fare best?
Christopher Adams
You only need to let in one person who vetos the rest and then you're done. Nation-sized groups are impossible in this model.
Brody Jackson
Oh yea also I would be with the gun owning Jow Forums lands of capitalism yet communism.
Blake Campbell
What? You're completely missing the point. Why would the rest let him in if he's going to do that? The point is to co-operate and be in a team with likeminded people. Not to make the thought experiment unviable and impossible.
William Martin
>tfw I've never heard anyone advocate for my political system so I'd just be alone
So it isn't possible to deceive those who are already chosen? They have total knowledge of the applicants? And I realise I'm far away from the spirit of your question, but that's because "which ideology is better" is a boring question, but investigating categorisation, ingroups, and identity is a much more interesting argument.
Nathaniel Robinson
I would live on the Buddhist/Daoist/Gnostic planet. That planet would not be the conventional definition of success but it would be the most peaceful.
The least successful would be an African planet, because they can't create anything good ever. basically like Africa but with no free stuff handed out by Europeans. So their excess population would die of starvation and disease and then they would revert back to their old ways.
Also the Progressive/cuck/roastie planet would be even less successful because it's self-destructive. As each generation only Chad genes are passed down, they would eventually regress to gorilla stage and lose their humanity.
Adam Sanchez
They don't have total knowledge but as soon as he does that, the rest are free to form their own group without that specific individual, instantly. For this reason, it's not "possible" to really deceive anyone because they will just get tired of the fuckery and then find their people to get along with without you. Imagine you are stuck in an endless time loop while choosing and then when everyone is happy and satisfied, launch day happens. Everyone can change their mind as many times as they wish before launch day.
Gabriel Wright
Then planet weed will come out on top. Chill stoners will all accept each other and form the largest group, and then being stuck on an alien planet without weed will clear their heads so that they can use their huge numerical advantage to get the fastest economy going to head out into the universe in search of more weed. Everyone not chemically altered will be too fractious to form a large society.
