One change in the world, for a price of course.

[sidhe3141]

The wish: The USA develops a method based on raw energy pulled from an alternate dimension that allows every person on the face of the earth to become intelligent, wise, tolerant, selfless, and so on, while fulfilling all of their needs and wants.

The cost: We lose access to all forms of energy other than the alternate-dimension one.

...yeah, I'm min-maxing my wish.

 

[CptCamoPants]

Newton's third law works in this, as well. You'd be surprised at how many moral/economic/political/etc things work off of examples in the physical world.
So, basically, there would be absolutely no change, unless you did what OP did and fucked the world over for eternity by making us lose a crapload of oil. (Venezuela has the world's biggest reserves, by the way, it's just a lot nastier oil than Saudi Arabia, and oil is just too good of a product to just lose like that, it's too useful)

 

[bodyklok]

I'd make France have a blithering idiot who'll always make the worse decision possible for it's leader, the side effect? Nothing. The UK always has a blithering idiot for a leader, take that OP.

 

[Juraz]

Take all the nukes from America (and they can't create anymore every again too), my country Australia gets loses our great supply of null and I am at peace

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I would change scienticfic funding for food. If we could engineer our foods, so that certain things could maintain a specific temperature longer through some additive, I think it would be worth the cost to whatever the funding was diverted from.

For example:
[1] Ice cream! If Ice cream could have an additive inside that allows it to keep its shape for a prolonged period of time, and yet is still deformable, certain aspects of life might be more enjoyable. Through mild refridgeration, say less than the ambient temperature by only a few degrees, Ice cream could maintain its shape and structure. So now, Ice cream can be transported much easier, to locations that would be normally unfeasible for ice cream to go to--Temperate and Tropical places that don't have immediate access to a refridgeration complex/freezer, say Desert Areas.

[2] Hot foods! If hot foods could be made to last longer, two things would change--the enjoyment of the meal throughout the course of the meal, and the diet of those eating those meals. One of the reasons people gain so much weight from each meal they eat is that the oils and fats in the food have solidified, and are harder to process in digestion, so they get pushed to the side, and are left undissolved, eventually grouping into body fat. When those same oils and such are heated, they dissolve in a much easier fashion, and can be digested much sooner.

 

[monkey_man]

delete all weapons in iraq (nukes and pistols,rifles) and our weapons will vanish too? who cares! this is the netherland where i live in ! only thing that will disappear is our army (tiny army)
if this isnt suitable mmm... ehm...
make osama vanish in trade of our "royal family" they are just an icon who cost a LOT of money
(truly a lot!)

 

[RelexCryo]

I believe the ability to defend oneself is an innate right...and secondly, the math seems to show that letting citizens defend themsleves helps, rather than hurting. For example: Michigan allowed citizens to carry guns around in the year 2000. The crime rate immediatley fell, and it stayed lower, even as the recession got worse.

I agree, everyone has the right to defend themselves. But not by immediately killing the offending party. And that is the only use for guns: killing.

Also, correlation does not imply causation.

If strict gun control results in an increase in crime, my country would be high in criminal numbers as while we have lots of guns, we also have strict control. And yet, for some reason, our crime rates are not that bad. In the year 2004, we had 150.46 offences per 1000 people. This includes traffic violations (over 40 per 1000 people).

In fact, gun related homicides are rare, comprising only about 14% of the total number of homicides (comparatively low number). Street shootings and gang violence are mostly nonexistant.

In fact, alcohol is a much larger problem than guns over here. The majority of criminals and victims have been under the influence of alcohol during the act of violent crime. In homicides 61-75 percent, in attempted homicides 71-78 percent and in assaults 71-73 percent of the criminals were under the influence of alcohol.

So how does the math apply to Finland? Apparently, it does not. So either my country is the anomalous data point in the statistic, or strict gun control does not increase crime by default.

First of all- are you saying that if a rapist attacked a woman, and her only means of defending herself was to shoot him with a gun and kill him, it would be wrong?

Secondly, I never said that guns were NECESSARY for a low crime rate. Japan proved this, they have pretty much all guns banned, and they have a very low crime rate. I believe that if you have good social conditions you don't need guns, but if your country does have bad social conditions, then you do need them.

 

[RelexCryo]

Snip

Snip

I don't believe in changing anything about other people's countries, since it is not my country, it is not my right to decide their fate.

Secondly, based on the math I have seen, allowing citizens to own/carry guns results in less crime. There are some relevant facts here:

I believe the ability to defend oneself is an innate right...and secondly, the math seems to show that letting citizens defend themsleves helps, rather than hurting. For example: Michigan allowed citizens to carry guns around in the year 2000. The crime rate immediatley fell, and it stayed lower, even as the recession got worse. By contrast, both Britain's crime rate and violent crime rate have skyrocketed since banning handguns...and the crime rate rise started about 3 years before the global recession hit in 2000.

Lastly, although I don't believe in marching into other people's countries and telling them what to do, I would have the propaganda and lies of political groups and goverments exposed around the world. I would have people suddenly know the truth on many issues. Then we could truly fight corruption, and create a better future. I am not sure what the downside of that would be.

I don't mean to be crass, but you seem to have missed the point of this thread and gone on to your own tangential agenda. Your original post ignored the confines as provided by the OP, and seems oriented towards contentious arguments of semantics and cherry picked statistics.

Such debates are fine. One might hope, however, that such debates would occur in private or within the confines of a thread created for that effect.

Yeah, I originally didn't know that it was outside the terms of the discussion, he had to inform me of that. And I apologized afterwards for that. It was about changing other countries, and I didn't realize that at first. I apologize.

Secondly, this ENTIRE THREAD is about private agendas and personal politics. This thread is about what matters to YOU in politics, and what YOU think would be a good idea for instituting political change. What changes would be worth the cost is the question here. Nukes? Germ Warfare? Religious wars, abortion, the ecology? It's all about what you personally think would make the world a better place. That is the entire point of the discussion. The fact I tried to change something about my own country rather than someone elses' is a technicality. It's still in keeping with the spirit of the discussion, which is what political changes you would create, despite the associated costs with doing so.

 

[Zacharine]

As we exchanged PMs we came to the conclusion that we shall not continue with this derail as while at first it was pretty close to the OP it has become more about solely gun control issues.

I will give my last word on the subject: While a woman about to be raped shooting the rapist is not wrong per se, lethal violence should now and forever be the last resort, not the first. There would be guaranteed to be non-lethal methods available, it is simply an issue of having the training and mentality to use them. Having a gun makes applying lethal level of violence even as pure deterrent an extremely easy option, something I personally don't agree with; it makes most of us totally ignore the non-lethal options.

Suffice to say, derail over and we agreed to disagree.

 

[SimpleChimp]

Okay.

First of the awesomely absurd one. I would place myself as the emperor of all the lands of the old Roman Empire (and since it is a wish they love me) the loss to America would either be the loss of me or the loss of its "Power".

Second Answer. I can't think of one that isn't delightfully absurd. I can easily say i would stop the genocide in Darfur, or bring peace to Israel and Palistine, but in both cases it would be a short lived peace that would brew resentment. The countries around Darfur might wonder, what about our needs. The Arab Nations around Israel would still resent the loss of land, or the Israelites would be forced out of their homes. I would trully want to stop the suffering in Darfur, but it is a political war, the losing side would soon enough raise to arms again.

And the sacrifices required to stop the Genocide, if under the equivalent exchange rule, would cost American lives that would be on my conscious for the rest of my life. If my ability to stop the Genocide around the world started an equal Genocide at home would anything truly be fixed?

I can easily wish for racial equality, i can easily wish for an end of nationality, racism, secular hate, but that would not stop anything. People would still fight and kill, and the sacrifice paid upon the billions of Americans would in itself be a Genocide.

Maybe i would just change a few countries flags.

The consequence is that the American flag would be replaced with a neon pink background with a winking unicorn as the national symbol, center mass.

That is alright for me. Because i'm already in charge of the Roman Empire, so let the American's have their gay flag!

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I would leave the world as it is. Anything I can do will be somehow countered, and the world can rot as far as I'm concerned anyway.