• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I wish for one electron to disappear from every atom. The net result would be that all atoms would now have a positive charge.

    True, it would not only end all life on earth, but also destroy the entire earth. But everything would be positive.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are plenty of atoms/molecules that have greater negative ionization states than -1. This wouldn’t even make everything neutral.

      Captain Pedant… AWAAAAYYYY.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        OTOH, if you shifted the ionization state of every single atom, then pretty much every molecule would end up flying apart. You can’t form H2O if hydrogen has no electrons at all; hydrogen becomes a single proton.

    • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is interesting cause I wonder if relatively it’d be like shifting every element in the periodic table one to the left, cause who’s to say neutral isn’t our current measurement -1, but the orbitals will remain the same hence the shift

    • horsescorpion@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      So every time someone stubs their toe, every other human would feel the pain? Everyone would be completely overwhelmed by all kinds of feelings all the time.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        Apparently, the word empathy isn’t as well understood as I thought.

        Under typical usage, it refers to emotions, not full sensory input. Think Deanna Troi from star trek.

        I’ve never actually heard/seen it used to refer to sensory input.

        And, yes, even if it’s “only” emotions that are picked up, it would be distracting. This would radically change human society. That’s the entire point of the question in the post. It would be even more of a change with full sensory input though.

        Imagine a world where that guy that’s creeping along on the highway isn’t just making people angry, because everyone that gets close knows that he’s grieving so hard he can barely function. You feel that grief yourself. Or, if you prefer your interpretation of empathy, you can feel his bowels cramping and realize that he’s going slow because he’s looking for an exit.

        Now, this doesn’t automatically mean that everyone is going to act with kindness. But it does mean that none of us could ever again just dismiss someone else’s state of being. We would know that the other person is a feeling being and that makes being cruel an entirely different proposition. Whe we would feel, just like it were our own pain, what our actions cause, it’s gong to make people slow down and think before acting.

  • MrZee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m trying to focus this answer on something that seems like a really small change:

    I wish everyone is slightly more empathetic.

    I feel like this could give us a lot of small nudges toward being better people and a better society. I wonder if a small nudge could end up having a profound effect.

      • MrZee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes. But i was trying to make my change small… which is, of course, subjective. For me setting an empathy baseline feels like more than a small change.

  • bloopernova@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Everyone religious wakes up tomorrow realizing that it’s just a social club and none of the god stuff is real.

    • rivalary@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      They would still pretend. And, though it would solve a lot of problems, it would remove purpose for so many people.

    • milkisklim@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      So in this scenario where you have a magical Genie, you would use a supernatural being to stop others from believing in supernatural beings?

  • spauldo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Everyone is gifted with the ability to control their own fertility. You’re only fertile if you want to be. The only chance for pregnancy to occur is if both partners want it to.

    I imagine that would cause a severe population decline, and I’m fine with that. There’s too many humans on this planet already.

  • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    Pull a gazilion tons of carbon out of the atmosphere, crystallise it into gigantic diamond shards, and drop them from the stratosphere onto the 95th percentile by wealth in each country.

    • illectrility@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Wouldn’t work. If there’s so many diamonds, they’d just kind of lose their value. Also, who are you gonna sell them to, if everyone has them?

      Although it could kind of be a new currency that excludes the rich, making their wealth at least a little useless.

      I fully agree on the premise, but I think it needs refining.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    People can no longer share or post something on social media unless it is objectively true.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      In my opinion, this i̴s̸ ̷n̴o̷t̷ ̷a̸ ̸g̸o̵o̷d̵ ̸i̴d̵e̷a̴,̷ ̵b̸̟̂e̸̯͠c̷̞̕à̷͖u̷̼͝s̷̜̀e̵͖̾ ̷̲͗t̸͖͊h̵͔̿ē̷͉r̴̲͆e̸̥̚’̵̠͊s̴̰̿ ̶͔̇p̶̰̍l̷͍͆e̵̗͊ǹ̷̻t̶̫̾y̷̞̍ ̸̗̑ȏ̶̻͓̯̇̆f̴̯͋ ̷̪̀͝t̷̢̡̐̂h̴̖͛̂i̴̮̱̳̓̀̾ņ̷͔̯͝g̸̗͂s̴̢̀̑͜ͅ ̴͍̝̀͑̾ṅ̶͇́ǫ̷̐̽t̴̥͙̋͂ ̷̲̥̕s̵͖̞͓̑͝͠ṭ̵̋̚r̸͖͆i̸̪̺͆͗c̵͓̼͛t̴̡̯̄͘l̶͕̏̈́̕y̴̤̣͈̅ ̷̛̜̗̻̈́v̶͔̺͐͑̍e̵̛͉̮r̷͖͓̉ỉ̷͈́f̸̟̓̕i̴̧̯͎͒̅͒a̶̖͑̈́b̴̡̧̈́̿͠l̴̜̿e̵̼̻͇͝ ̴͚̈́̅t̷̘͕̺͋͂̒h̸̳͔̑ȃ̶̹̗͔́t̴̡̰̺̋ ̸̫͜͝͝ ̶̖̀ ̷̣̬͑̂̐ ̴͇̄̔͝ ̴̟̃̀͜ ̶̽̿ͅ ̴̠̿s̵̼͚̖͆̎̉t̷̳̝̜̅̾ĩ̴̟̈̍l̵̫̗̼̈́́l̶̥̪̀ ̶̧̪̜̅̍n̸͖͊͆̕ė̴̹͔̭̇̚ḛ̷̊d̵̛̄͘ͅ ̶̡̘̱͝s̸̰͆̍̀a̶̩̻̐ẏ̵̳͉̦ḯ̸̞̻͒ṉ̷̏ͅg̵̩͓̈́ ̴͍͚̏ ̴̭̘͐̂ ̵͙̤̻͐̋̊ ̶͉͌ ̴̬̈ ̸̡̄ ̴̗̼̌ ̶͕̐ ̸̪̄ ̵̢̿̏ ̴͕͉̗̀ ̸̠͋́͝ ̴̺͈͛͐͐ ̷͓̙͑͋͒ä̸͖̝͇́n̴̛̹̰̏d̸͍̗̓͋ ̷̯̫́ ̸͚̀ ̶̱̽̃̔ ̷̖̣̈́͂ ̶̧̉̇̾ ̷̰̊̂͊ ̵̧̤̊ͅ ̶̞̮͂ ̴̨̑̿ ̴̜͛̋̐ ̵͉̆ ̶̼̫̌ ̶͍̥͊̎ ̷̭̃ ̵̙̪͎̔̍ ̸̢̧̇͜ ̷̲̰̃̐ ̶͙̐ ̴̞͊̉ͅ ̷̭̟͔̏̉̃ ̸̨̱͂͝ ̶̫͈̐̔͝ ̷̧̹̊̈̈́ ̶̥̠̜́ ̷̰͍͌͂͝ ̸̹̗̀ ̶͎̱͉͗ ̷̣̚ ̶̛̤̱̈́̃ ̷̰̪̗͂̐͌ ̷͓̝̬͗̎ ̴̨̦͈̆̊̃ ̷̡̓͐̕ ̸̰̍̕ ̵̗̞̥̓ ̸ ̸͕͆ ̴͒ͅ ̸͙͌ ̸̢͛ ̷̙͝ ̴̗̈́ ̵͚̿ ̵̯̓ ̶͎̐ ̵̘̇ ̵͂͜ ̷̧̃ ̵̫̿ ̵͔̌ ̵͔̌ ̷̟͗ ̸̣̆ ̴̖̾ ̶̤͠ ̷̲̒ ̷̱̑ ̸̟͗ ̸͇̐ ̴ ̴͎͋ ̸̪̍ ̶̜̽ ̶̪̂ ̸͇̋ ̵̹̎ ̶̡̊ ̴ ̴ ̸ ̶ ̷ ̶ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̴ ̸ ̵ ̷ ̷ ̸ ̴ ̵ ̴ ̵ ̷ ̵ ̶ ̸ ̷ ̸ ̷ ̴ ̵ ̸ ̵

  • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Metacognition becomes routine for humans. We are able to better de-fuse from our thoughts, and recognize them not as reality but as thoughts about reality.

      • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        We all have thoughts in our head. They are the lenses through which we see reality.

        Sometimes, we are aware of that. For example, we may realize we’re being prejudiced or that we’re being cranky because of our mood.

        However, this uses up a lot of energy; our frontal lobe is very energy-hungry. So we spend most of the time thinking habitual thoughts and following habitual behaviors. We don’t realize we’re looking at reality through a lens. We assume we are simply looking at reality.

        What I am wishing for is for people to constantly be aware that the way they are looking at reality depends on the lenses they have learned and habitually use.

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Every one gets a strong moral compass that they can’t ignore.

    Sure we won’t all have the same morals but I believe that most bad things in the world happen because people ignore morals and act selfish and only a small part of our issues stem from actual moral differences.

    Edit: Seems I am much more optimistic than I thought.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 years ago

      Rates of religiously based terrorism would go through the roof. The problem is that people that, e.g., bomb abortion clinics believe that they are doing the morally correct thing, because it’s better to murder a few people than to allow those people to “murder” thousands of innocent “babies”. Likewise, you’d suddenly have people that are casually racist now immediately turn to full-on race war shit, because if you believe that nonwhite people are causing harm to the “white race” simply by existing, and you have a moral compass that you can’t ignore, then the moral thing to do is to prevent that harm by killing the people committing the harm, esp. when you believe that they’re irredeemable by virtue of genetics.

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      There’s a ton of really shitty people with strong moral compasses they can’t ignore. Most of them follow faiths ending in ity, ism, or lim

    • Stez@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Dude according to some people not straight cisgender people wouldn’t have rights and would be killed

  • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    The invention of a small easily producible power source that never runs out and has enough power to power vehicles/planes/vessels of all kinds.

  • Susaga@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    Every figure leading every cult of personality is now seen as an imposter pretending to be themselves. For example, people think some orange-faced lunatic keeps trying to get on stage at a Trump rally, but Trump himself just disappeared.