ATLAS

 If an alien civilization were to visit Earth, would they be more likely to enjoy our music or the
taste of food? Please explain your reasoning. (max. 1000 characters)
I found this question very interesting to think about as I related it to mathematics.
Music and mathematics share the same beauty. Generally, people who appreciate the beauty of
mathematics activate the same part of their brain when they look at aesthetically pleasing formulas as
others do when appreciating art or music, suggesting that there is a basis for beauty.
Nature is the same for all of us. If we assume that mathematics is a fundamental language of the universe,
then aliens might appreciate the inherent beauty of mathematical principles and patterns and thus might
find a natural affinity for the beauty expressed in our music.
On the other hand, it’s very unlikely that aliens will enjoy our food. Food preferences are highly
dependent on an individual's biological construction and physiological mechanisms. Aliens would have
different digestive processes, sensory systems, and nutritional requirements. As a result, it is very unlikely
that they would even be able to eat our food and not only enjoy it.

 Tell us about a time you broke a rule. Why did you do it? (Please be honest. Rules don't always
make sense. We are interested in people who question bad rules.) (max. 1000 characters)
When I was 14 years old, I was playing Fortnite like crazy with my friends. By that time, I was famous
and had a good reputation in Fornite Trading Market, where we would trade Fortnite accounts for
money/accounts.
Long story short, my friend got scammed due to his naivety, they stole his account and didn’t return the
money back. I was furious. I wanted to get revenge. I decided to use the same deception tactics on that
scammer, I messaged him. Apparently, he was legitimately trying to trade with me. He made the move
first and gave me two accounts. I decided to scam him even more.
After revenge was finally fulfilled, I was happy that I/my friend could play together as we did. But after
that, I was soon cascaded with an unknown emptiness that I did all this illegitimately. In the end, I became
that scammer.
Now that I look back into time and I am much wiser, I will always remember Nietzche’s quote as a
reminder that we should understand the dangers of becoming what we fight against.

 Will the US and China go to war this century? Please state your probability forecast as a
percentage number.
 The USA has been part of a lot of armed conflicts. Let's approximate how many conflicts(the cold
war) turned into kinetic wars from mid 20th century till this day. Using Wikipedia, I found out that 50
wars happened and the most destructive were 6 of them: American-led intervention in Iraq, the Iraq
War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in Afghanistan, Persian Gulf War. That means on
average cold to serious kinetic war probability is 12%.

The USA has been part of a lot of armed conflicts. Let's approximate how many conflicts(the cold
war) turned into kinetic wars from mid 20th century till this day. Using Wikipedia, I found out that 50
wars happened and the most destructive were 5 of them: American-led intervention in Iraq, the Iraq
War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the War in Afghanistan. That means on average cold to
serious kinetic war probability is 10%.

China was directly involved in 2 of 6 wars: the Vietnam War and the Korean War. So if the USA's
probability average is 12% and 2 of them is China involved we may say that it's 24% that the war will
happen, also considering time-scales.

The USA has been part of a lot of armed conflicts. Let's approximate how many conflicts(the cold
war) turned into kinetic wars from mid 20th century till this day. Using Wikipedia, I found out that 50
wars happened and the most destructive were 5-6 of them: American-led intervention in Iraq, the Iraq
War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in Afghanistan, Persian Gulf War. That means on
average cold to serious kinetic war probability is 10%.

China was directly involved in 2 of 6 wars: the Vietnam War and the Korean War. So if the USA's
probability average is 10% and 2 of them is China involved we may say that it's 20% that the war will
happen, also considering time-scales.

I looked that there is a potential risk US-China cold war, using Metaculus statistics US-China war
before 2035 probability is 19%.

Considering all of it and blending statistics, I think that there is a 19.5% probability that war will
happen.
 Estimate how many people will end up owning infinite volume.
This is an interesting thought experiment, but it is very difficult to estimate how many people would end
up owning infinite volumes without more information. We could at least say that it depends on the
distribution of humans and number of people.

The distribution of humans in space is not uniform, so some regions of space may have more humans than
others. Additionally, the distance between humans and points in space can vary greatly. However, if we
assume that humans are distributed evenly throughout the universe and that the average distance between
humans is d, then the volume owned by each human would be a sphere with radius d/2. The volume of
this sphere is (4/3)π(d/2)^3 = (1/6)πd^3. Assuming there are N humans in the universe, the total volume
owned by all humans would be N times the volume of each sphere, or N(1/6)πd^3. The total volume of
the universe is infinite, so if N is finite, then at least some humans would end up owning an infinite
amount of volume. Therefore, the answer to the question would be: 0 humans would end up owning
infinite volume if there are an infinite number of humans, and if there are finitely many humans, then at
least some humans would end up owning an infinite amount of volume

I saw that the growth rate for 2023-2053 is 0.3% per year. Resulting in 2053, 8.87 billion people.

Assuming that humans are randomly distributed throughout the universe, the probability of a human
being the closest to a particular point in space is extremely low. Additionally, even if a human were
closest to a point, the volume owned by that person would be minuscule compared to the vastness of
space.

By considering digital people,

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any person would end up owning an infinite volume of space. It is
impossible to own an infinite volume of space as infinity is not a real number. Thus, the answer to this
question would be 0.

This proposed law seems to be a hypothetical scenario and does not have any factual basis. However, I
can provide an estimate based on some assumptions. Assuming that the universe is infinite, there are an
infinite number of points in space. If we assume that there are only a finite number of humans, then there
will be infinitely many points in space that are not closest to any human, and therefore not owned by
anyone. As for the estimate of how many people will end up owning infinite volume, it is difficult to say
without additional information. We would need to know the distribution of humans in the universe and
their proximity to different points in space. If humans are evenly distributed in the universe, then it is
unlikely that any human will end up owning an infinite amount of stuff.

However, if we assume that humans are clustered in certain regions of the universe, then it is possible that
some humans will end up owning more than their fair share of space. In this case, the number of people
who end up owning an infinite volume of space would depend on the distribution of humans in the
universe and their proximity to points in space.
  Imagine that in 20 years you will realize that the view you chose above was completely right, and
you now have an opportunity to send a letter back in time to your current self to convince them
that they were mistaken. However, you cannot rely on authority or the fact that you have more
experience now. You will have to use reasoning and the evidence you currently have available.
What would that letter say? (max. 1000 characters)

In our pursuit of unity, we risk sacrificing the very essence of democracy and freedom.
History has taught us that concentrated power often leads to corruption. Without the checks and
balances provided by independent countries and separate government systems, the risk of abuses of
power becomes even greater. Corruption thrives when there is a lack of transparency, accountability,
and competition.
While a global government might promise unity, we should not underestimate the importance of
diversity and the benefits it brings. Independent countries allow for the preservation of unique
identities, cultures, and traditions. They provide avenues for democratic participation and the
protection of individual freedoms.
In "1984," Orwell depicts a dystopian society ruled by a totalitarian regime. The government, known
as "Big Brother," exercises complete control over its citizens, suppressing individuality, eradicating
personal freedoms, and manipulating information to maintain its power.

Overall, without additional information, it is difficult to provide a precise estimate of how many people
will end up owning infinite volume under this proposed law.

 What is your 95% credible interval for the number of people who will be alive in the year 3000
CE (including digital people)? Explain your reasoning by giving a roughly one-sentence
justification for each important step of your reasoning. (max. 1000 characters)

Based on the Earth’s resources and current growth rate, we can expect the population to peak and stabilize
at around 10-11 billion by 2100 CE. But we also have to include digital people. I roughly estimate that
digital people will be invented in 2100 CE. So, our starting population is 10 billion, which is stabilized,
then I assume that digital people don’t die and 1 person has 1 digital copy. The point I’m making is that
digital people’s population grow, because new people are born and real population is stabilized.
Also, assuming that 1.9 births per woman is accurate
On the other hand, worst case scenario, considering pandemics, wars, and other things we could expect
that population to decline to 1 billion, with G being fluctuated to -0.1% to -1% per year.

Assuming the projected fertility rate of 1.9 births per woman is accurate, this would translate to
approximately 212 million births per year in 2100.

so I will extrapolate this distribution to the year 3000 CE, assuming a growth rate(G) of 0.3% per year,
which is the average for the past few centuries using (P(Future) = P(Now)*(1 + G)^number of years) we
get 158.5 billion.

 If you are a thirder, what probability should you assign to the die having come up 20 if you are
first told that this is the first time you are being woken up? Please explain your reasoning. (max.
600 characters)

If were are first told that this is the first time that we are being woken up, then the probability of the
die having come up 20 is 1/20.
THIRDER
The key to the problem is that our memory is lost after we are woken up and this leaves us wondering
how many times we were woken up already and there comes the “thirder” perspective. But if they tell us
that it’s the first time that we are being woken up, then our wondering goes away, it could be because of
any number on the dice, it doesn’t matter, which leaves us the probability of 1/20.
HALFER
From the “halfer” perspective, whether our memory is lost after we are woken up or not doesn’t matter.
The fact that they tell us it’s the first time we are being woken up will not change a single thing for the
“halfer” perspective. It’s a 20-sided dice and we roll it once, so the probability of number 20 coming is
1/20.

 Please explain what, if anything, is wrong with the argument above. What are the premises? What
is the conclusion? Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Are the premises true? How
about the conclusion? Be sure to summarize the argument in a maximally charitable way before
you criticize it (or conclude that there's nothing wrong with it as the case may be).

Premises:
 1. The more generally intelligent a system is the more likely it is to be right about some fact. This
includes moral facts.
Conclusion:
1. If Artificial Intelligences that are more intelligent than humans across almost all domains were
built one day, and they were to decide to wipe out humanity, this would likely be a morally better
outcome than the available alternatives.
Flaws:
1. First premise isn’t entirely correct. Intelligence isn’t only factor that determines the correctness of
decision.
2. The more something is Intelligent doesn’t mean it would be correct on moral facts. I think It’s
about emotional intelligence.
3. If we assume all the premises are correct, it still doesn’t necesserily follow that wiping out
humanity would be morally better outcome than the available alternatives.

I think the first premise is wrong. Intelligence isn’t the only factor that determines the correctness of
decisions and smartness isn't necessarily related to being correct about moral things, it's more about
problem solving and critical reasoning.

While AI having high IQ, doesn't mean high EQ. Being correct about moral facts is highly dependent on
Emotional Intelligence such as emotions, ethics, empathy, values and context which play a major role in
decision making. That's why I believe it's wrong to assume that smarter people will be better at making
moral decisions.

Based on this model, my 95% credible interval for the number of people alive (including digital people)
in the year 3000 CE is between 1 billion to 158.5 billion. This interval reflects the wide range of possible
outcomes, from catastrophic events that could wipe out most of humanity, to exponential growth that
could lead to massive population sizes.

The distribution of outcomes is heavily skewed towards lower population sizes, with a long tail of rare
and extreme events such as pandemics, wars, technological breakthroughs, and other unpredictable
factors that have the potential to increase population sizes.
As of 2023 CE, the world population is around 8 billion.
I saw that the growth rate for 2023-2053 is 0.3% per year. Resulting in 2053, 8.87 billion people.
I have read that researchers assume 10.4 billion people will peak at 2100 CE and then will slowly decline
by 0.1%, so the growth rate will be -0.1%.
P(Future) = P(Now) * (1 + G)^number of years, G is the growth rate.
Based on the Earth’s resources and current growth rate, we can expect the population to peak and stabilize
at around 10-11 billion by 2100 CE. But we also have to include digital people. I roughly estimate that
digital people will be invented in 2100 CE. So, our starting population is 10 billion, which is stabilized,
then I assume that digital people don’t die and 1 person has 1 digital copy. The point I’m making is that
the digital people’s population grows because new people are born and real population is stabilized.
Assuming a growth rate(G) of 0.37% per year(D), which is the average for the past few centuries using
(P(Future) = P(Now)*(1 + G)^number of years) we get 277 billion.
On the other hand, worst case scenario, considering pandemics, wars and … we could expect population
to decline to 1 billion, with G being fluctuated to -0.1% to -1% per year. Based on my model, 95%
credible interval for population (including digital people) in year 3000 CE is between 1 to 277 billion.

In pursuit of unity, we are risking sacrificing the very essence of democracy and freedom.
History has taught us that concentrated power often leads to corruption. The more power is concentrated
on one system more dangers it poses. Without having independent countries the risk of abuses of power
becomes even greater. Corruption gets stronger when there is a lack of diversity and accountability.
In “1984”, Orwell depicts a society ruled by a totalitarian regime. The government, known as "Big
Brother" has complete control over its citizens and tries to manipulate information to maintain its power
while eradicating personal freedoms.
While a global government might promise us unity, we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of
diversity of different countries. Independent countries allow for the preservation of unique identities,
cultures, and traditions.
I believe that we shouldn’t allow one global government in charge of all decisions due to the various
reasons I mentioned.
Based on current demographic trends, we can expect the population to peak and stabilize at around 10-11
billion by 2100 CE, but we also have to include digital people, so I will extrapolate this distribution to the
year 3000 CE, assuming a growth rate(G) of 0.3% per year, which is the average for the past few
centuries using (P(Future) = P(Now)*(1 + G)^number of years) we get 158.5 billion.

On the other hand, worst case scenario, considering pandemics, wars, and other things we could expect
that population to decline to 1 billion, with G being fluctuated to -0.1% to -1% per year.

Based on this model, my 95% credible interval for the number of people alive (including digital people)
in the year 3000 CE is between 1 billion to 158.5 billion. This interval reflects the wide range of possible
outcomes, from catastrophic events that could wipe out most of humanity, to exponential growth that
could lead to massive population sizes.

Based on the Earth’s resources and current growth rate, we can expect the population to peak at around
10-11 billion by 2100 CE.
Given the long-term uncertainty, I will assume that the population will be 10 billion by 2100 CE. I will
extrapolate this distribution to the year 3000 CE, assuming a growth rate(G) of 0.3% per year, which is
the average for the past few centuries using (P(Future) = P(Now)*(1 + G)^number of years) we get 158.5
billion.
On the other hand, considering pandemics, wars, and other things we could expect that population to
decline to 1 billion, with G being -0.1% to 1% per year.
Based on this model, my 95% credible interval for the number of people alive(including digital people) in
the year 3000 CE is between 1 billion to 158.5 billion. This interval reflects the wide range of possible
outcomes, from catastrophic events that could wipe out most of humanity, to exponential growth that
could lead to massive population sizes.
My offhand answer was music. I thought a little more and I found my intuitive response very interesting.

Alien beings, with their unique bodies and biological construction, would likely have different sensory
systems, digestive processes, and nutritional requirements. As a result, it is indeed unlikely that they
would find our food enjoyable or even edible.

Mathematical beauty often lies in the elegance, symmetry, and harmony of patterns and relationships.
Nature is the same for all of us, I strongly believe that aliens would see the beauty of the universe as
nearly the same as us.
These concepts transcend cultural and linguistic boundaries, suggesting a potential universality. If aliens
have a similar capacity for mathematical reasoning, they might appreciate the inherent beauty of
mathematical principles and patterns.

I believe in music. The reason behind this is that music is a combination of different frequencies of
vibrations. And I believe that aliens would see the beauty of the universe as nearly the same as us, like
harmony. Generally speaking, mathematics is the same for all of us, maybe their language is a little bit
different but the core ideas are the same. I found that idea very interesting that if u zoom in on music u
will find mathematics, mathematical beauty is hidden natural beauty that lies everywhere because
mathematics is vaguely the same for all of us, I believe that mathematical beauty -> music, and yeah.
.
Similarly, music, with its rhythmic patterns, harmonies, and melodic structures, evokes a sense of beauty
and emotional resonance in humans. It is conceivable that aliens, possessing auditory perception and a
capacity for sensory pleasure, may also be sensitive to the patterns and structures that underlie music.
Mathematical beauty often lies in the elegance, symmetry, and harmony of patterns and relationships.
These concepts transcend cultural and linguistic boundaries, suggesting a potential universality. If aliens
have a similar capacity for mathematical reasoning, they might appreciate the inherent beauty of
mathematical principles and patterns.
In conclusion, the potential shared mathematical understanding between alien civilizations and humans
suggests that they might find an inherent beauty in both mathematics and music. Mathematical principles
could serve as a common thread, connecting our music and their own potential musical expressions.
However, it is crucial to consider the influence of cultural and emotional factors on musical beauty, which
may result in diverse musical preferences even among mathematically inclined civilizations.
Food preferences are highly dependent on an individual's biological makeup and physiological
mechanisms. Alien beings, with their unique bodies and biological construction, would likely have
different sensory systems, digestive processes, and nutritional requirements. As a result, it is indeed
unlikely that they would find our food enjoyable or even edible.
Since alien physiology is unknown to us, we can only speculate about their dietary needs and preferences.
It is possible that their bodies may rely on entirely different sources of sustenance or possess different
taste receptors that perceive flavors in a completely distinct manner. Consequently, the taste, texture, and
nutritional value of our food may not align with their requirements or expectations.
Furthermore, the microbial composition of our food, which plays a crucial role in its digestion and impact
on our health, might be incompatible with alien physiology. Microbes that are beneficial or benign to us
could be harmful or even toxic to them. This further diminishes the likelihood of aliens enjoying our food.
It is important to consider that the diversity of life forms across the universe may give rise to a vast array
of culinary traditions and dietary practices. Just as the Earth is home to a wide range of eating habits, it is
plausible that aliens have their own distinct methods of sustenance, which might be entirely
incomprehensible to us. Therefore, while music and mathematical principles may have a more universal
appeal due to their abstract nature, the enjoyment of food is intricately tied to an individual's biological
construction. Consequently, it is improbable that aliens would share our taste for Earthly cuisine.

Food depends on an individual's biological construction, how its body is produced what it needs.

 What is one decision that a policymaker in the government who takes the main advice given in
"On Caring" seriously might make differently from a policymaker who does not?

A policymaker who takes the advice (let’s call him A) given in "On Caring" might make different a
decision for example about global poverty. He will recognize that there is an insufficiency of existing
resources, and a policymaker who embraces this advice would prioritize the allocation of additional
resources to tackle poverty issues.

Let’s call Policymakers who do/don’t take the main advice in “On Caring” A/B.
To end poverty we need $40 billion per year. They have funding project.
Both A and B give $20 billion per year from their budget for poverty issues. The difference is that A
would consider the larger picture and the scope of the problems. He realizes that everyday 25000
people die due to hunger. Both feel sorry, but A recognizes that our “care feelings” are not strong
enough, even if we don’t feel a strong compulsion, we should do it anyway similarly like courage.
A starts to allocate additional resources to tackle poverty issues, if it means sacrificing other
problems. A thinks more in terms of numbers and statistics rather than relying on our feelings because
feelings might lie to us.
A realizes that addressing global poverty and building a brighter future deserve more resources than
currently exist.

They would recognize that poverty problems require substantial investments beyond what may
currently be allocated.

doesn’t take the advice (B)

Difference is A

Lets say he gives $20 billion per year.

, will not try to allocate additional resources for poverty.

Additionally, a policymaker who takes the advice will consider the larger picture and the scope of the
problems. He would recognize that our “care feelings” are not strong enough, even if we don’t feel a
strong compulsion, we should do it anyway similarly to courage. We should think more in terms of
numbers and statistics rather than relying on our feelings because feelings might lie to us. They would
recognize that poverty problems require substantial investments beyond what may currently be
allocated.
In summary, they would prioritize evidence, collaboration, and pragmatism over relying solely on
personal feelings or internal compulsion.

g healthcare, poverty, and inequality compared to a policymaker who does not. He would work
towards reducing poverty and ensuring that vulnerable populations have fair and affordable access to
food.

The advice emphasizes that addressing major problems, such as global poverty and building a
brighter future, requires more resources than currently exist. It highlights the limitations of relying
solely on internal compulsion or personal feelings to guide decision-making.

Let’s call Policymakers who do/don’t take the main advice in “On Caring” A/B.

To end poverty we need $40 billion per year. They have funding project

Both A and B spend $15 billion per year on poverty issues.

B thinks he is doing enough and there is no reason for any more investments but A looks at data, and
statistics indicating severity of the problem that every ten-second child dies due to hunger.

Both feel sorry, but A recognizes that personal care feelings alone are not sufficient to address such a
complex issue, even if we don’t feel a strong compulsion, we should do it anyway similarly like
courage.
 A considers the larger picture and the scope of the problems and realizes that addressing global
poverty and building a brighter future deserve more resources than currently exist thus starts to
allocate additional resources to tackle poverty issues even if it means sacrificing other projects'
budget such as military spending.

, but A recognizes that our “care feelings” are not strong enough, even if we don’t feel a strong
compulsion, we should do it anyway similarly like courage. The difference is that A would consider
the larger picture and the scope of the problems.

By A not trusting his care-o-meter

Let’s call Policymakers who do/don’t take the main advice in “On Caring” A/B.

To end poverty we need $40 billion per year. They have funding project.

Both A and B give $20 billion per year from their budget for poverty issues.
B thinks he is doing enough but A looks at data that every second child dies due to hunger.

Both feel sorry, but A recognizes that our “care feelings” are not strong enough, even if we don’t feel a
strong compulsion, we should do it anyway similarly like courage. The difference is that A would
consider the larger picture and the scope of the problems.
A realizes that addressing global poverty and building a brighter future deserve more resources than
currently exist thus starts to allocate additional resources to tackle poverty issues even if it means
sacrificing other projects' budget such as military spending.

Additionally, you can emphasize the importance of data and evidence-based decision-making, as
policymaker A l

By A not trusting his care-o-meter

One major problem with the proposal is the potential for unintended consequences and distortions in the
market due to the assignment of sectors by producers. Producers may be incentivized to strategically
assign their goods to sectors that they perceive as more profitable or with higher demand. This could
result in an uneven distribution of goods and limited access for certain sectors, leading to inequities and
inefficiencies in the market.

To address this issue, one possible improvement to the incentive structure could be to introduce a
randomized allocation of goods to sectors by an independent entity. This would ensure a fair and unbiased
distribution of goods across sectors, eliminating the potential for strategic behavior by producers. The
random assignment would promote equal access to goods, prevent market distortions, and enhance
fairness in the marketplace.

One major problem with the proposal is the potential for misallocation of goods and limited consumer
choice. Under the proposed system, producers have the ability to assign their goods to a specific sector.
This can lead to a situation where certain sectors have limited access to goods, while other sectors may be
oversupplied. As a result, consumers in underserved sectors may not have access to the goods they need
or desire, while consumers in oversupplied sectors may face limited options and reduced competition.
This issue arises because the proposal allows producers to strategically assign their goods based on their
perceived profitability or demand in different sectors. This can result in a distorted market where the
distribution of goods is not aligned with the actual preferences and needs of consumers. The random
assignment of households to sectors does not address this problem, as producers still have the ability to
choose which goods they assign to each sector. To improve the proposal, it would be beneficial to
introduce a mechanism that ensures a more equitable distribution of goods across sectors. This could
involve a centralized allocation system or a market-based mechanism that allows consumers to express
their preferences for goods and producers to respond accordingly. By considering consumer demand and
preferences in the allocation process, the system can better align the supply of goods with the needs and
desires of consumers, promoting efficiency and consumer welfare.

One major problem with the proposal is the potential for misallocation of goods and limited consumer
choice. Producers have the ability to assign goods to specific sectors, leading to uneven access and
potential oversupply in some sectors. This results in consumers in underserved sectors lacking necessary
goods, while those in oversupplied sectors have limited options. Randomly assigning households to
sectors doesn't address this problem, as producers can still strategically assign goods. To improve the
proposal, a mechanism ensuring equitable distribution is needed. This could involve a centralized
allocation system or market-based mechanism reflecting consumer preferences. Aligning supply with
consumer needs promotes efficiency and consumer welfare.

Hey.
I am writing to you to share a different perspective on the view you currently hold. Having one global
government in charge of all decisions instead of independent countries with separate government systems
has several potential benefits. Lets talk about it.
Firstly, you can agree that it can promote global cooperation and unity, leading to more efficient decision-
making processes.
Nowadays, The European Union (EU) serves as a great example of regional integration, with free
movement of goods, services, and people, promoting economic growth and prosperity. Through EU,
member countries have established common regulations, standards, and policies. Also, The EU has
addressed common challenges such as climate change, security threats such as reducing the risks of
conflicts among its members, also terrorism and wars, resulting in a more streamlined and harmonized
system.
I think we should take an example from EU and please consider my thoughts and try to implement this
perspective.

The EU exemplifies the benefits of global government, with free movement of goods, services, and
people, promoting economic growth and prosperity. Through EU, member countries have established
common regulations, standards, and policies, resulting in a more streamlined and harmonized system.
of regional integration with numerous benefits. It has promoted economic growth by facilitating the free
movement of goods, services, capital, and people among member states. This has resulted in increased
trade, investment, and job opportunities.

A global government could address global challenges like climate change, tackle poverty more efficiently,
reduce terrorism and wars.

In conclusion, a global government can enhance cooperation, streamline decision-making, and address
global challenges, but careful consideration and a balanced approach are necessary.

I am writing to share a different perspective on the view you currently hold about having one global
government and the benefits of regional integration, specifically citing the European Union (EU) as an
example.

However, potential drawbacks and challenges, such as loss of cultural diversity and abuses of power, must
be considered

While it may seem convincing that a global government would promote efficiency, unity, and effective
decision-making, it is essential to consider the potential drawbacks and challenges that come with such a
system. The diversity of cultures, values, and interests across nations is a crucial aspect that should not be
overlooked.

In pursuit of unity,we are risking sacrificing the very essence of democracy and freedom

History has taught us that concentrated power often leads to corruption. The more power is concentrated
on one system more dangers it poses. Without having independent countries the risk of abuses of power
becomes even greater. Corruption gets stronger when there is a lack of diversity and accountability

For Exampe In “1984”, Orwell depicts a society ruled by a totalitarian regime. The government, known as
"Big Brother" has complete control over its citizens and tries to manipulate information to maintain its
power while eradicating personal freedoms
While a global government might promise us unity, we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of the
diversity of different countries. Independent countries allow for the preservation of unique identities,
cultures, and traditions

I believe that we shouldn’t allow one global government in charge of all decisions due to the various
reasons I mentioned

This is an interesting thought experiment, but it is very difficult to estimate how many people would end
up owning infinite volumes without more information. We could at least say that it depends on the
distribution of humans and the number of people. To simplify a little bit, lets make assumptions.

Let’s assume we have a perfectly spherical Earth and the population distribution is uniform. Earth’s
population is 8 billion people and they all are located on a spherical surface. Now we can use spherical
symmetry and also we can look at it from another perspective by realizing that Earth’s size is like a dot
for the infinite universe, thus everything is symmetrical. Blending all this information and using the
infinity concept that 8 billion times infinity is still infinity. Therefore, realizing all of this, we can say that
8 billion humans would end up owning an infinite amount of volume.