Who would you use to build a new world?

anonymous161

macrumors 6502
Original poster
This may be a little confusing, but I thought it would be fun:
At the end of the movie A.I. (not the greatest movie ever, but go with me on this), humanity has died out and a race of machines is studying what once was the human race. They can easily resurrect specific humans from the past, including their memories, etc. Now using that concept as inpsiration, lets say you were in charge of building a new human civilization on a new planet (or in a new dimension, whatever). The only requirements would be to manage an eventual population of 5 billion or so that can exist together and evolve. The world would like the world today, with similar climate and and natural resources as well as the same basic geographic layout.
To set this in motion, you can only use a single human's brain- with all of its information and abilities- to construct or reconstruct humanity. All humans will be based on this model. Now the question is who do you use?

This can be a specific person, ie Albert Einstein, or a generic type of person, ie a physicist.

Do you use someone like a professor or mechanical engineer? They know plenty of principles but do they have enough real world experience to implement all of the systems necessary for a productive world? Remember, your humans have to learn how to speak, how to write (if you want them to), where to put waste, how/who to marry (or not), what to believe in (and whether that can change), how to make fire, how to build a house, etc, etc, etc.
Also, do you build a simple society, like one based on agriculture, or do you go for a complex modern society with computers, transportation, etc?
Do you set up a unified world? Or a group of independent countries? Do your people sail the seas or power across them with engines? Solar power? Fossil fuels?
So, who would you use and what would they do?
Sort of like a giant game of the Sims.
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
Rather than Albert Einstein, who was a supremely intelligent physicist but not known to be good at much of anything else besides making witty statements, I'd go with more of a Renaissance Man-type person... for example, Leonardo da Vinci or Thomas Edison.

And to ensure peace and harmony on this new world, I'd make sure that no concepts of religion, nation, or politics were ever allowed to be introduced.
 

Hemingray

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2002
2,913
25
Ha ha haaa!
anonymous161 said:
To set this in motion, you can only use a single human's brain- with all of its information and abilities- to construct or reconstruct humanity. All humans will be based on this model.
There's the problem right there. That society would be doomed to eventual failure no matter WHOSE brain you used! No single brain has ALL of the diversity that humankind has, so recreation would be imperfect.

Why bother? If we wiped ourselves out, we deserve it. :D
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
LeeTom said:
Haliburton!
Well, if we're going to list corporations, my sarcastic response would be to use those frickin' idiots who built the Big Dig (aka The Central Artery Project) in Boston... tens of billions of dollars in cost overruns, and it STILL leaks. These same jackasses are now contracted to build the light rail system here in Charlotte...despite the fact that everyone knows they're incompetent and corrupt.
 

anonymous161

macrumors 6502
Original poster
clayjohanson said:
Rather than Albert Einstein, who was a supremely intelligent physicist but not known to be good at much of anything else besides making witty statements, I'd go with more of a Renaissance Man-type person... for example, Leonardo da Vinci or Thomas Edison.

And to ensure peace and harmony on this new world, I'd make sure that no concepts of religion, nation, or politics were ever allowed to be introduced.
Well that's the thing isnt it. Where did the concepts of religion, nation, and politics come from in the first place?

The advantage/crux of humanity is its ability to build upon knowledge and concepts to create more complex concepts. Politics evolved from simple disagreement, as did war, nation and religion.

We tend to look back on history with an air of supremacy. We say that we wouldn't do things the way those before us did. That is why I began thinking about this. How could you start over and if you did start over would it truly make any difference? The more humanity has accomplished, the more it has wanted to do again. People came across the oceans to America to start over, something they had done a million times before. Humans seem to have more desire to do things differently than they have to do things at all. Imagine truly how much easier everything in life would be if we were all exactly the same. Sounds boring doesn't it?

There's the problem right there. That society would be doomed to eventual failure no matter WHOSE brain you used! No single brain has ALL of the diversity that humankind has, so recreation would be imperfect.

Why bother? If we wiped ourselves out, we deserve it.
Humanity is already imperfect. We fail all the time at everything we do. Building it around 1000 people would probably do nothing but speed up the process.

For my money, I would use Benjamin Franklin.
 

MongoTheGeek

macrumors 68040
I would say me and a bunch of hot women. Attractive women tend to be genetically superior. If you have to start from scratch I doubt you could rebuild technology to the point where knowledge of technology would be useful in a lifetime. You might be able to get to the iron age.
 

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
clayjohanson said:
Rather than Albert Einstein, who was a supremely intelligent physicist but not known to be good at much of anything else besides making witty statements
Personally, I have found his views/insights on religion, humanity and socialism to be quite interesting.

Hemingray said:
Why bother? If we wiped ourselves out, we deserve it.
I agree. We will wipe ourselves out and it will be our own fault. I wouldn't bring us back. Nature should move forward, right? :)
 

dvdh

macrumors 6502
Apr 6, 2004
429
0
Given that the criteria is for a human . . . I guess "God" is out. . . .

But in line of the original question: my initial nod went to Buckminster Fuller. Haven't you always wanted to live in dome with a one piece plastic bathroom and drive a round car (very efficient for it's time). For a guy who only ever wore grey suits, he had a pretty creative mind.
 

Drgnhntr

macrumors regular
Nov 4, 2004
101
0
San Diego
Mahatma Gandhi
Our social advancement is much slower than technology. I would sacrifice technology and science to keep what social advances we have made.

Though I am not sure how much of a society it would be if it were only based on one person. It would be like being a room where everyone agreed on everything, what would you talk about?
 

dvdh

macrumors 6502
Apr 6, 2004
429
0
Drgnhntr said:
Mahatma Gandhi
Our social advancement is much slower than technology. I would sacrifice technology and science to keep what social advances we have made.

Though I am not sure how much of a society it would be if it were only based on one person. It would be like being a room where everyone agreed on everything, what would you talk about?
Nice choice. I hadn't thought of it from that point of view. My assumption was that humans (in general) would naturally form societal bonds. (There are plenty of examples to prove or disprove this the more I think of it.) I chose someone who would come at the responsible technology side of things under the hopes that we would be less cruel on the earth from a technological point of view. However, Ghandi, would not stand for a foreseeable exploitation of nature either.

I hope more people will chip in with some more ideas. . . .
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Al Bundy, or Homer Simpson!

that ought to inject the proper mix of chaos and lunacy that we have made it to in the 2005, about as fast as anyone.

I would really pick one socialogist a 3 philosophers and a physicst for a team of 5 with me as supreme comander!
 

angelneo

macrumors 68000
Jun 13, 2004
1,537
0
afk
cr2sh said:
No, I'm pretty sure he meant "Arn".
Hmm... maybe if we could put the 3 suggestions together. Grasp!... looks like you guys are trying to ban me from here! It's a conspiracy... :D