• teft
    link
    English
    1611 months ago

    I hope you mean immoral which while being really bad would not be as bad as an immortal ruler.

    • @HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      711 months ago

      I strongly disagree.

      Most presidents have lived, at most, a few decades after the conclusion of their regime. I believe Carter is now the champion in that category, at 43 years. This is the upper bounds on their consequences. As far as we know about life after death, anything that jumps the track after that is no longer a problem for them. This creates a tunnel vision-- it’s very hard for mortal leaders to consider “this has a payback or cost structure over 50, 100, 500 years.”

      On the other hand, an immortal is stuck here. He’ll be the one with searing lung pain for millennia until the ecosystem heals from a fossil-fuel binge, he’ll be watching any century-scale projects he invested in crumble as society destabilizes around him. This would impact his goals and decision making process-- his self interest would favour stewardship and long-term stability.

      TBH, I really want to see some sort of take on “Vampire runs for President on a pro-ecology platform.” It’s no zanier than anything else in this season’s Crunchyroll catalogue.

    • @Menachem@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      ah but you see, an immortal ruler would be truly above all the petty bickering of normal politics and able to put the needs of the many first, without being influenced by moneyed interests. It’s the obvious next step to improve upon the lifetime appointments of our incorruptible, incontrovertible supreme court!