> Hopefully we can find a better form of social organization soon, one that doesn't offer the ruthless and ambitious quite so much leeway to enrich themselves by harming others.
Yes, but they all have a low chance of having the desired effects. I can list buzzwords that might be worth trying: dominant assurance contracts, seed factories (clanking replicators), Gandhian nonviolence, strong cryptography and cryptocurrencies to structurally limit the powers of governments (whether democratic or otherwise), enhanced geothermal systems, land value taxes, pervasive pseudonymity, solar-orbit artificial habitats, drug decriminalization, copyright elimination. Some of these are surely counterproductive, while others would improve the situation. All are uncertain in their effects.
All this stuff is, sociologically speaking, "basic research". When you start out on basic research you don't know what the results will be.
(But isn't it unethical to do experiments on humans? No, whatever you do in the world without knowing the full consequences amounts to "experiments on humans", and the question is whether you do it well or badly.)
That would be a significant effort. These are complex and nuanced issues. Would it suffice for me to simply say that you raise good points and silence implies consent?
Hear hear.
Got any suggestions?