The Fallacy of The Unbounded Middle
In the pineapple episode of The Tick (animated series), the monkey Yank talked about "the fallacy of the unbounded middle". He was talking to a mad dictator who wanted to conquer more and more countries. It seems to be not a common term, but I found this interesting bit:
Paul Fritsch said:
While I do not subscribe to the “The Grapes Were Sour” philosophy, it strikes me that the idea that immortality must be a good thing is an example of “The Fallacy of the Unbounded Middle” to use the monkey's terminology . That is, a little is good. More is better. Thus an unlimited amount is great. This turns out to be rarely the case. There is usually a point that is reached where more is no longer better, but worse. The first 100 million is good, but after that is just a burden. All billionaires have fulltime security and can never do the things we take for granted. Think “World of Tiers”. After a few thousand years, it all could get boring.
I'm considering writing novels on that theme: Bruce Almighty, serious version. If you were to become even moree all-powerful than Superman, I mean REALLY, capable of doing almost anything you can IMAGINE... what would you do?
For the sake of convenience, we'll skip the whole part "becoming Absolute Overlord of the Earth and reveling in luxury and the terricfied worship of the masses".
You're all-powerful. Oh, and of course also as everlasting as you can beart to think. Time, means... it's all yours. Think you can do a good job at making the Universe a place you like more than now?
That is indeed an excellent question, which is asked surprisingly rarely.
As a child I dreamed about being Superman. As an adult... in the real world, what could he *do* really? How often do you just happen to come across airplanes dropping helplessly from the sky?