New "Have a TARDIS" RAR!

[Scrib]

If experiences matter the non-experience of rewinding time is irrelevant.

I am pretty sure it is impossible to 'non-experience' anything; you appear to be envisioning a 'hypertime' model where a 1D timeline is permuted and hence exists as a progression of timelines across a 2D space. While viable and consistent as a model of time travel, there is no reason to privilidge 'past' events along the original time dimension as 'existing' while past events along the hypertime dimension (erased timelines) do not. In fact it is physically inconsistent to do so just as it is for the slightly more elaborate non-overwrite branching multiverse cosmology used in this scenario (which itself is an artificially constructed version of the natural many-worlds cosmology).

I'm not sure that it was a statement on time travel at all.It's not that the experience before doesn't matter. It's just that nothing was experienced as you rewinded time or wiped someone's memory. Sure, the bad shit happened but the bad thing happening and then not happening is not worse.

So, if experience is the meaningful thing, the question is why raping someone then removing that experience (and possibly saving them future experiences) is worse than just raping them.

There are some arguments but, like I said below, they depend on consequences (that do not matter here) or some concept of "rights"/inherent dignity.

It consequences matter it is also irrelevant. Without some sort of focus on rights I don't really see the rewind being worse.

Rights are of course an important ethical concept, but they're also a fairly abstract one. You can't rigorously define rights without sorting out some basic definitions of 'conscious experience', 'volition', 'sentient being' etc (obviously very hard to do rigorously but non-rigorous definitions suffice for casual debate).

Unfortunately though, if the issue is about consequences then you need rights to talk ethically since consequences are irrelevant in the sort of scenario Purple was talking about (I know it doesn't match the OP). Of course, the issue being about consequences depends on the stuff above this.

I hope that it turns out that I don't have to choose between self-determination and welfare but not knowing how such power and knowledge can change me I cannot say for sure. It's quite possible that I run into a situation where repression is preferable.

The general idea of utilitarianism and indeed modern liberal thought in general is that we should try to increase both. At any one time there is likely a trade off between freedom and welfare, with vocal argument in society about where exactly it should be, but we hope that progress can increase both.

[/quote]
I feel a bit pedantic but it seems that the general idea of utilitarianism is to improve welfare. The fact that we find that letting people do certain things makes them feel better is a happy coincidence. Utilitarianism at its simplest doesn't say anything about your "right" to self-determination as a thing in and of itself. So when welfare and freedom face off it is really about two different strategies to achieve more welfare.

Part of the problem is the one you attribute to rights: casual conversation uses blurry terms. Sure, there's less immediate welfare for the guy that wants to chop heads off, but there's more general welfare in the preservation of social order and life.

The question is whether we would ever learn something that pushes the nearly all-powerful, unaccountable being in this situation to disregard self-determination. And...it's at least conceivable.

[Starglider]

So, if experience is the meaningful thing, the question is why raping someone then removing that experience (and possibly saving them future experiences) is worse than just raping them.

Sorry, misparsed that. The answer is that you're non-consensually deleting some amount of their personality. People who believe in continuity flaws should really believe that overwriting a timeline is murdering everyone in it and then cloning them, to be consistent. For people who don't believe in continuity flaws (i.e. sensible people) it is a little more complex. At first glance 'deleting' a timeline (e.g. reverting a universe to a prior state) is equivalent to forced total amnesia of the reverted period, but you have to consider whether the 'restarted' universe will proceed along the same history as the previous one. This dependends on the cosmology; specifically whether quantum indeterminism plays out the same way (in a single timeline or branch-of-the-many-words-tree sense) and whether you have any fantasy physics 'restorative' forces. Assuming no effective divergence then everyone outside of the future light cone of the re-entering time-traveller replays the experience directly, and cannot really be said to have lost anything even if they have (unknowingly) experienced some things twice. For short durations a lot of the people inside the future light cone will experience events so close as to be effectively equivalent. Effective amnesia only occurs if quantum indeterminism causes rapid diveregence of the 'reset' timeline (probably not in this scenario given the author intent) or if the time traveller interacts with them in either the deleted/offshoot or new/reset timelines (strictly if they interact differently, but that is almost unavoidable).

Practically though if you do a bad thing to someone, reset the universe (without asking their permission or despite them not wanting it), then don't do the bad thing, then yes it's non-consensual amnesia. So yes I agree. (without considering the rest of the universe) whether the reset is ethical is a question of individual rights (to keep one's own mind-state) vs harm of allowing the consequences to remain. Though there are secondary implications in that even if you take a hardcore hedonistic-utilitarian position and advocate erasing trauma with non-consensual amnesia (time machine powered or otherwise), that itself encourages more traumatic acts by reducing the perceived consequences in the minds of abusers. I think you alude to this later in your post.

I feel a bit pedantic but it seems that the general idea of utilitarianism is to improve welfare. The fact that we find that letting people do certain things makes them feel better is a happy coincidence. Utilitarianism at its simplest doesn't say anything about your "right" to self-determination as a thing in and of itself. So when welfare and freedom face off it is really about two different strategies to achieve more welfare.

I confess I tend to say 'utilitarian' in the sense of applying expected utility calculus to action selection rather than meaining Utilitarianism as a philosophy. IMHO though attempting to reduce rights to merely prescriptive rules for achieving maximum hedonic utility results in a brittle system that produces nonsenscial (and humanly undesireable) results at extreme scenarios. Utility calculus is completely compatible with discrete rights though in that we can easily and sensibly assign direct utility to the preservation of rights (optionally subsuming some of the consequent hedonic utility for a more stable outcome). I'm not speaking in a completely abstract sense here; this is something I've actually done in microworld simulations, enough to get a sense of the various pathologies badly done formalisations of ethics can produce when coupled to a probabilistic planning/decision engine.

The question is whether we would ever learn something that pushes the nearly all-powerful, unaccountable being in this situation to disregard self-determination. And...it's at least conceivable.

Agreed.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Purple, if there is a literal perfect "undo" function to erase your bad acts (rape, murder, genocide, whatever you do for the hell of it) tot he point where even you don't remember it and can't extrapolate the events...what is the point? It might make the consequences dissapear, but you won't remember doing either the bad event or undoing it...so you won't have satisfied whatever fucked-up curiosity you had, so you'll try again.

And you also have the point that Starglider (or Simon, can't recall which) raised that every time you "reset" the universe, you effectively kill everything in existence and revert back to an earlier version. Even if it's only a few minutes, on Earth alone thousands of newly-conceived embryos will be undone?

Every time you revert to a previous save you are essentially mind-fucking every sentient being in existence to cover up your own mistake. Or, if it's "revert to original timeline" then you are creating entire universes full of people (and the inherent suffering that causes) to satisfy your own curiosity, and then abandoning them when you realise you screwed something up. THat's...indescribably awful.

[Purple]

Purple, if there is a literal perfect "undo" function to erase your bad acts (rape, murder, genocide, whatever you do for the hell of it) tot he point where even you don't remember it and can't extrapolate the events...what is the point? It might make the consequences dissapear, but you won't remember doing either the bad event or undoing it...so you won't have satisfied whatever fucked-up curiosity you had, so you'll try again.

That's not the point. Seriously, I had a reason to cut things off the way I did.
I am building up an argument here. It's just that since the argument is complex I want to take it one step at a time examining each in turn until we hit a point of divergence upon which we disagree. This will allow me to argue far more efficiently as the situation is just that complex. So please reply one step at a time so that we can establish the point of disagreement more easily.

And you also have the point that Starglider (or Simon, can't recall which) raised that every time you "reset" the universe, you effectively kill everything in existence and revert back to an earlier version. Even if it's only a few minutes, on Earth alone thousands of newly-conceived embryos will be undone?

This relates to the above. If you will allow.

Every time you revert to a previous save you are essentially mind-fucking every sentient being in existence to cover up your own mistake.

This actually relates to the original step #1 I posted so I shall address it now.

How is making something "newer have been" mind fucking anyone? I am not erasing memories or changing memories. Nor am I somehow performing brain surgery. It's literally changing the events that happened to form said memories in the first place. It's no more mind fucking than if I were to go back in time and make sure Napoleon conquers Russia.

Or, if it's "revert to original timeline" then you are creating entire universes full of people (and the inherent suffering that causes) to satisfy your own curiosity, and then abandoning them when you realise you screwed something up. THat's...indescribably awful.

Yes, we have already established that under the alternate universe situation it is indeed evil.

[Starglider]

Or, if it's "revert to original timeline" then you are creating entire universes full of people (and the inherent suffering that causes) to satisfy your own curiosity, and then abandoning them when you realise you screwed something up. THat's...indescribably awful.

Scenario specifies the second cosmology. Creating a universe isn't inherently bad though, in that if you asked most people whether they would rather not have existed, they will say no, they prefer to exist. Obviously we can't say what it's like beyond our own era of our own planet but I think it's fair to say that the existence of the universe is a net positive. Creating more is still a mind-bogglingly consequential act that no one should undertake on a whim, whether you screw around with the local planet or not.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Every time you revert to a previous save you are essentially mind-fucking every sentient being in existence to cover up your own mistake.

This actually relates to the original step #1 I posted so I shall address it now.

How is making something "newer have been" mind fucking anyone? I am not erasing memories or changing memories. Nor am I somehow performing brain surgery. It's literally changing the events that happened to form said memories in the first place. It's no more mind fucking than if I were to go back in time and make sure Napoleon conquers Russia.

Essentially mind-fucking everything. Yes, you aren't tampering with their memories, you are undoing every single choice they made in that time and forcing them to make them again. It's still bad. You are coming along and saying "fuck all your choices, just because I want to re-try one event to satisfy my own curiosity you have to re-take those choices."

For that matter, every time you reset things you will be resurrecting people only to let them die again, possibly over and over again. In a world of seven billion people (even if there is nothing else out there) even in a few minutes many people die, in said, tragic, painful or stupid ways. This isn't a good thing either.

Since the scenario specifies the "new timelines" cosmology, you are copying the entire universe and forcing all these duplicate inhabitants to live new, subtly different lives. How many of these duplicates will die as a result of these subtle differences? How many people will be seriously hurt, physically or mentally? The percentage might be low, but with seven billion humans even a low percentage is a lot of people. you might "undo" one bad act but you will cause far more problems for this new universe, and worse, it's a new universe you'll probably never look at (or care about) again because it didn't work out how you'd like.

How do you not see that this is a bad thing to do?

[Scrib]

Or, if it's "revert to original timeline" then you are creating entire universes full of people (and the inherent suffering that causes) to satisfy your own curiosity, and then abandoning them when you realise you screwed something up. THat's...indescribably awful.

Scenario specifies the second cosmology. Creating a universe isn't inherently bad though, in that if you asked most people whether they would rather not have existed, they will say no, they prefer to exist. Obviously we can't say what it's like beyond our own era of our own planet but I think it's fair to say that the existence of the universe is a net positive. Creating more is still a mind-bogglingly consequential act that no one should undertake on a whim, whether you screw around with the local planet or not.

Creating and abandoning a world to pain that you can fix is a pretty shitty thing, assuming that we think Purple is as responsible as say... a parent would be.

Of course, one could argue that more harm is done and that human beings are simply wired to ignore this harm and cherrypick their way to a positive balance on the back account but the trivial argument is of course: if everyone believes that life is a positive is it then not true?

It requires the sort of understanding of human cognition that a time traveller would have.

And you also have the point that Starglider (or Simon, can't recall which) raised that every time you "reset" the universe, you effectively kill everything in existence and revert back to an earlier version. Even if it's only a few minutes, on Earth alone thousands of newly-conceived embryos will be undone?

Are the potential lives of those embryos inherently valuable?

This seems a bit like the transporter problem: it depends on how you see the self. If I rewind to a minute ago sure, the you of the future is "dead" but does it matter?

Utility calculus is completely compatible with discrete rights though in that we can easily and sensibly assign direct utility to the preservation of rights (optionally subsuming some of the consequent hedonic utility for a more stable outcome).

I was with you until here. This doesn't seem to fix the problem. Depending on the value you assign to rights you merely raise the bar-or lower it. If rights are placed on the same ground as utility then the problem you're talking about (of instinctively unappealing outcomes like plugging everyone into a giant machine or ripping kidneys out of people to spread them around) disappears. If you merely give rights utility then...you're doing exactly what I said-placing them below the hunt for more utility. It seems to boil right back down to Utilitarianism (the theory).

Even the most insane utilitarian can think of situations where rights trump pure hedonism. One could argue that this is most of the time, it still doesn't escape the problem. Though, going by your last line you seem to hint that you don't think that it does.

[Crossroads Inc.]

As creator of this... Mess... so far, I am curious where is everyone assuming they are getting these Nigh Omnipotent God like powers?

The artifacts given in the OP were basically designed to ensure against accidental death as someone is observing or changing history.
While the TARDIS "CAN" travel into the future, it is ONLY the future of Earth. So far we have not found any other intelligent life. And if we do, we do not know if THEY are super advanced or not.
Talk of building 'Spaceships' or giant armies of Sci-Fio conquest are rather moot as (aside from the FTL on the TARDIS) you are still in "Our" universe obeying the laws of physics.
Yes you can hope between almost unending parallel universes, but they are all "Our" universe as it were. There are no entrances to fictional worlds to collect items of super power.

The most anyone could EVER hope to achieve in terms of "A God Empire" is traveling into the very distant past, advancing human tech by centuries, using the TARDIS production facilities to manufacture advanced materials and machinery. After maybe a few hundred years of careful progress, you MIGHT have an "Empire" spread out around the Solar system. Since aside from the TARDIS, there exists no FTL drives.

Personally... THIS is the reason why I normally put a "You cannot time travel beyond the Modern Era" in such set ups, but I exempted that THIS time because most people seemed to spend all their time trying to work around that clause...



To Others...
On the topic of "Creating an entire WHOLE new universe just for some experiment"
I had thought about that concept, and to satisfy my OWEN morality as eel las sense of well being.. I tried to hint that going back to a "Save point" would act as a Cosmic Reset.
If you "Record" A universe under certain settings, and run a time experiment which results in the Annihilation of almost all life on earth except for a pocket of forever tormented Humans, you can res assured that going back to the "recorded" universe will reset the variables, and you will NOT have to worry about some where "Out there" a universe being left behind of tormented humans due to one small experiment.

On retrospect, thinking over the issue, I think one would have to ask if there should be an option to let a universe continue to exist, rather that "Reset" it to your saved parameters. As other have pointed out... Creating a Universe full of people who have a chance to forge a new existence may be a net positive, the universe may not have turned out EXACTLY as you had hopped, but so long as it is not marginally WORSE than the original, it opens the argument to let it continue on with it's existence rather than hit "Reset"

All in all.. I find i=t interesting how people react when given such options. So far there have been one or two people who have expressed genuine interest in observing or experiencing key moments in time, or making specific alterations they feel would benefit mankind.

[InsaneTD]

Well given the ability to have two timelines, I'd keep one as is, and explore it when I need a vacation from the timeline I'm playing in. Plus I do want to still be able to spend time with my friends. I wouldn't bring then with me to my earth.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I thought I'd specified how I'd become a God. Become truly immortal in Earth's far future, then do that "absorb the energy of the Time Vortex" bit from The Parting of the Ways. The Doctor said that if a Time Lord did that he'd become a God (but he'd probably burn through his regenerations pretty quick) so if I am truly immortal it won't be a problem.

[Starglider]

Of course, one could argue that more harm is done and that human beings are simply wired to ignore this harm and cherrypick their way to a positive balance on the back account but the trivial argument is of course: if everyone believes that life is a positive is it then not true?

Respecting volition inherently means bowing to personal opinion (and hence the netted collective opinion) on 'good vs harm done'.

Are the potential lives of those embryos inherently valuable?

Dodging the question for a moment it certainly illustrates that ethical value (generally) scales smoothly and there is no magic binary point at which an embryo flips from 'irrelevant bunch of cells' to 'a person'.

Utility calculus is completely compatible with discrete rights though in that we can easily and sensibly assign direct utility to the preservation of rights (optionally subsuming some of the consequent hedonic utility for a more stable outcome).

I was with you until here. This doesn't seem to fix the problem. Depending on the value you assign to rights you merely raise the bar-or lower it.

Yes, because most people accept that sometimes it is more desireable to violate the rights of one or a few to preserve the rights of the many, other more important rights, or yes even simple utility when the difference is very large. Using eminent domain to forcibly purchase land for a new railway line violates the right of property ownership and as well as causing significant distress to a few who don't wish to move, in return for the high (perceived) utility of the railway line to society as a whole.

If rights are placed on the same ground as utility then the problem you're talking about (of instinctively unappealing outcomes like plugging everyone into a giant machine or ripping kidneys out of people to spread them around) disappears.

What does 'placed on the same ground' mean? I am saying that rights are assigned independent value in utility calculus such that agents implementing the calculus will select for actions that maximise the weighted sum of preserved rights and increased personal wellbeing (defined as some combination of primitives such as experienced pleasure, pain (negative weighted), long-term contentment, reflective satisfaction etc). That is 'on the same ground' in the sense that either can dominate decision making depending on the circumstances. The alternative is a stratified goal system where some goals always dominate others. This breaks down at the limit, because for a powerful intelligence there is always some way to achieve a slight maximisation of the 'high priority' goals, meaning that the 'low priority' goals are permenantly neglected. It actually formalises as a transfinite system of utility weights, and while it works in the sense of expressing a consistent preference ordering over all possible outcomes, it produces inhuman results. Humans may say they always respect rights over wellbeing but (a) they're lying and (b) humans have a lot of extra heuristics about capping the optimisation effort devoted to specific goals, which don't formalise well or consistently. Better to just get it right in the first place rather than emulate that stuff.

If you merely give rights utility then...you're doing exactly what I said-placing them below the hunt for more utility. It seems to boil right back down to Utilitarianism (the theory).

They are 'below' in the sense that they exist within the same optimisation framework but so what. The effect is a negative utility to rights violations that overwhelms all but the most compelling increases in welfare (which itself you can partially define in terms of 'rights' e.g. only desired sensations count as good and undesired ones as bad), just as for the eminent domain example.

Even the most insane utilitarian can think of situations where rights trump pure hedonism.

Simply assigning rights high (independent) utility and hedonism low utility will create a preference order that the average lunatic libertarian would be quite satisfied with. You don't even need to assign that much to obliterate all socialist outcomes if you allow the inherent utility for rights to sum with their derrived utility (in making society work better / people happier in general). Just don't assign transfinite utilities to rights or you will get genuinely bizarre and inhuman results.

[Scrib]

+1 Starglider. Thanks for explaining.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Figured I might as well post MY Version of what I'd do before the thread falls off the front page
(ahems)


The following plan has four Primary goals in mind...
1: Prevent the rise of a Communist Russia (and by extension china) and the creation of a Russian constitutional Monarchy.
2: Prevent the election of Woodrow Wilson and his row in establishing a host of policies that exacerbated the Depression as well as his help in crafting a extremely punitive treat of Versailles.
3: Prevent the rise of Adolf Hitler to power and the eruption of a global second world war
4: Establish myself covertly over a cooperation of size, power, and wealth that I can influence any and all events that take place after 1930 onwards.

HOW shall I do this? Well...

Step 1: Timeline Tests
Begin testing three large scale changes in history one at a time, each test taking place individually at first in a separate universe.

A: 1865, meet with Nicholas Alexandrovich, "Convince" not to go on tour of Europe but instead stay home learning and following his father the Czar. Then in 1881 Travel to Russia, prevent assassination of Czar Alexander II, ensure his implementation of parliamentary system and eventual freeing of the Serfs.

B: 1907 Meet with Adolf Hitler, offer to sponsor him at the Vienna Art Institute, upon his graduation, hire him as an artist in America.

C: Meet with President William Howard Taft in 1911, "Convince" him to step down "if" Roosevelt decides to run again for President.

Each of these "tests" will be deemed successful when it is establish they do not lead to radically negative outcomes (AKA The world gets Nuked)
Once Each independent "test" takes place, begin to Merge the test combining these changes into one SINGLE timeline. Once again establishing that the changes together do not result in a negative outcome.

The MASTERPLAN
Once it is established that the above changes can take place without resulting in the destruction of civilization as we know it... I will begin PHASE TWO The creation of a massive cooperation to which I can influence the 20th century.

PHASE TWO
PART A:
1850 Arrive in San Francisco, meet with Samuel Brannan, "Convince" him to accept me as an anonymous business advisor and trusted confident. Then, again using the Ring of Power, install in him the following traits:
1, Stay totally faithful to his Wife and children.
2, Drink only in moderation, no longer visiting salons or bars.
3, Raise his eldest, Sam Jr, to some day inherit his business.
4, To keep a VERY Detailed journal of his daily actives and business dealings, which he will donate to a university for safe keeping upon his death.

PART B:
Travel into the future and purchase a copy of his journal. Check to make sure that the changes help him avoid various bad choices in his life that led to his divorce , the loss of more then 50% of his holdings, and his eventual financial ruin. Studying the changes to his timeline, go back in time to just after changes were made and begin Part C.

PART C:
Begin a year by year following of Sammuel Brannan and his son, and their company. Also begin to establish each of the three previous large time line changes tested earlier. Taking place in 1865, 1881, 1907, 1911.

PART D:
While following Sam, implement the following "suggestions" to nudge his company toward desired result.
1, The purchase of 1000 acres of ranch land in "Kern County" for cattle ranching.
2, Construction of general stores in San Diego, Los Angeles, and several boom towns in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona.
3, Involving Sam's son directly in the company from an early age as well as invoking him finically in a Bank Sam opens in 1865.
4, Buyout several failing logging companies in southern California.

In 1889, Sammuel Brannan dies, and wills ALL Assets of the company to his son, who takes over as Chairmen of the company.Introduce myself as a "Long time friend of his Dad's" and begin to influence the company through Sam Jr.


In 1898, Convince Sam Jr to purchase another 2000 acres of Ranch Land "On a hunch"
In 1899, oil is discovered in Kern County. The "Ranch land" purchase just happens to be on the largest oil fields in California. Partner in "Standard Oil Trust" purchasing many MANY shares in the company.
In 1906 when The Great San Francisco Earthquake happens. Position Sam Jr to buy up several hundred acres of burnt out land in the "Pacific Heights", "Eureka Valley" the "Mission District" and the "Castro" (For those that don't know, these areas will later become the most high value properties in the city)

Purchase of "The Cliff House" in 1907, avoiding the structure burning to the ground.

In 1911, aside from meeting with President Taft, Standard Oil is dissolved by the Supreme court into 31 smaller companies. Any owners of Standard stock are given an equal share in each of the new companies. Stock of the California parts of Standard Oil revert directly to Sam Jr and the company.

In 1918 as World War One ends, Roosevelt is placed in charge of the treaty of Versailles, his treaty puts far less economic restrictions and reparations on Germany, preventing a total economic collapse and offering a reconstruction effort similar to the reconstruction of Germany after WWII.

Through out the 1920's Convince Sam Jr to purchase huge amounts of stock using proceeds from the Standard Oil Stock.
Then, Between 1927 and 1928, sell off 80% of all stock holdings in preparation of the market crash in 1929. Cash from the sales is used to purchase mostly Gold and Silver secretly as well as vast amounts of land and property.

In 1931. Sam Jr dies, his will indicates the bulk of his fortune is put into "Trust" under his company, and will be governed by the bored of directors whoever they may,
In case you haven't caught on by now... I will basically be in control of the bored of directors, whoever they may be.

Between the purchasing of Stock, the ownership of Oil fields in California from Standard Oil, the ownership of department stores in what are now booming cities of LA, San Diego, Las Vegas and Phoenix, as well as the selling of vast qualities of stock before the depression... The Brannan Company would be worth close to 900 million dollars as of 1930.

PHASE THREE
The Future

With changes made to all three separate timeline events, as well as the creation of my own industrial super power, the ground work must now be laid for the future. The changes made will effectively eradicate virtually all known history past 1925.
To prepare for this. In 1920, a separate and independent aspect of the company is founded called "The Omnibus Foundation"
The Foundation is given the charter of "Preserving and Recording the present, for the history of future generations." It's task will be simply to record history as it happens. Recording Newspapers from large cities across America and converting them to Microfiche and storing them in bunker like archives across America.
The Foundation is placed under the control of Four chairmen, who just happen to be my Androids. The Androids will over see this foundation until the year 2000, changing appearance, personality and persona as needed so as to avoid detection.

In 1932, after putting in place a number of orders and directives to the company. I will "Save" the universe as is, and travel forward to the year 2000.
Once there, I will have the TARDIS scan and record the last 70years worth of rigorously recorded history thanks to the Foundation.
In effect I will have a day by day account of the new Timeline in a level of detail most historians could only dream of.
Once obtained, travel back to 1932, as the power behind the worlds first ((Possibly)) BILLION dollar company, and begin my behind the scenes guidance of the world through the next millennium...