Are people fundamentally good? Are they practically good? If you make one person God-emperor of the lightcone, is the result something we'd like?

I just want to make a couple remarks.

• Conjecture: Generally, on balance, over longer time scales good shards express themselves more than bad ones. Or rather, what we call good ones tend to be ones whose effects accumulate more.
• Example: Nearly all people have a shard, quite deeply stuck through the core of their mind, which points at communing with others.
  • Communing means: speaking with; standing shoulder to shoulder with, looking at the same thing; understanding and being understood; lifting the same object that one alone couldn't lift.
  • The other has to be truly external and truly a peer. Being a truly external true peer means they have unboundedness, infinite creativity, self- and pair-reflectivity and hence diagonalizability / anti-inductiveness. They must also have a measure of authority over their future. So this shard (albeit subtly and perhaps defeasibly) points at non-perfect subjugation of all others, and democracy. (Would an immortalized Genghis Khan, having conquered everything, after 1000 years, continue to wish to see in the world only always-fallow other minds? I'm unsure. What would really happen in that scenario?)
  • An aspect of communing is, to an extent, melting into an interpersonal alloy. Thought patterns are quasi-copied back and forth, leaving their imprints on each other and each other leaving their imprints on the thought patterns; stances are suggested back and forth; interoperability develops; multi-person skills develop; eyes are shared. By strong default this cannot be stopped from being transitive. Thus elements, including multi-person elements, spread, binding everyone into everyone, in the long run.
  • God--the future or ideal collectivity of humane minds--is the extrapolation of primordial searching for shared intentionality. That primordial searching almost universally always continues, at least to some extent, to exert itself. The Ner Tamid is saying: God (or specifically, the Shekhinah) is the one direction that we move in; God will be omnipotent, and is of course omnibenevolent. To say things more concretely (though less accurately), people in some sense want to get along, and all else equal they keep searching and learning more how to get along and keep implicitly rewriting themselves to get along more; of course this process could be corrupted / disrupted / prevented, but it's the default.
• Example: On the longest time scales, love increases, hatred decreases.
  • Given more information about someone, your capacity for having {commune, love, compassion, kindness, cooperation} for/with them increases more than your capacity for {hatred, adversariality} towards them increases.
  • You can perfectly well hate someone who you don't know much about.
  • How much more can you hate someone by knowing more about them? Certainly you can learn things which make you hate them more. But if you kept learning even more, would you still be able to hate them?
  • You can be quite adversarial towards someone without knowing them. Everyone can meet in combat in the arena of convergent instrumental subgoals.
  • The exception to this conjecture:
    • It is possible to become extremely more adversarial towards someone by knowing much more about them--so you can pessimize against their values.
    • However, there is a strange sort of silver crack: Because love and cooperation are compatible with unbounded creativity, love and cooperation are unbounded. Therefore, to "keep up" with the love of your unbounded love, adversariality would need access to the unbounded expression of your values, in order to pessimize against them. But this seems to imply that the adversary has to continually give you more and more love, in order to access your values at each stage. Not sure what to make of this. (The outcome would still be very bad, but it's strange.)
  • It's harder to feel compassion towards someone you don't know much about; towards someone you do know much about, compassion is the easiest thing in the world to feel, if you try for a moment.
  • (This is just another example of how Buddhists are bad: faceless compassion is annihilation, not compassion. Yeah I know you like annihilation, but it's bad.)
  • Kindness and cooperation requires information, and (for humans) can increase without bound with more information.
  • Ender: It's impossible or almost impossible to understand someone without loving them.

Thanks to @JuliaHP for a related conversation.