That's a fairly deep question OP. Well, I suppose I'd have everyone spend a day or more as other people around the world. My main belief is that most hatred and conflict stems out of ignorance and lack of empathy, which can never be addressed since each man is an island, stuck with his own thoughts, views, problems. Even if this experience has the potential to widen the gap (with counter-examples), it can still do good. Imagine spending a day in the life of a serial killer or of someone who is clinically insane. It may sound like a nightmare, but maybe it will also make one better appreciate his own life, no matter how challenging it is.

P.S. I'm going to take this chance to recommend this novel: https://www.sfsite.com/02a/bm121.htm to anyone who is into biology/physiology and/or SF.

Couldn't have presented it any better myself! This should be in bold, really!

In this case, it would be better if I were to have the desire to control others, because then everybody else would not.

All you can do is go with your moral compass and maybe let history be the judge. You didn't ask me, but I rather would, ideally.
Try being an antinatalist, as in not wishy-washy "oh I like kids and wouldn't tell others what to do but I just wouldn't want any of my own" childfree but firmly believing that maybe things might be different if humanity would realize the full positive potential of its level of knowledge and development, but as things stand, now that we have the body of knowledge and access to information necessary to know the problems and the impact, bringing another person into this world is at least as bad a crime as taking a life, and possibly even worse.
... And a supporter of deep ecology but not the non-intervention clause, considering that, while obviously not having the right to exploit at will, humans' position as the dominant species that can shape the world gives us the responsibility of being its stewards and helping the other species and the ecosystem.
... And a radical leftist that's as much against the classical left systems (like socialism and the theoretical concept of communism) as against capitalism, wanting to do away with any need to earn a living and salaried jobs and doing something in order to gain more for yourself and private enterprise beyond the very small scale in general and guaranteeing a decent standard of living for all, freeing people to do what they want, if/when they want, rather as a hobby, getting rid of both poverty and wealth and offering more, making some well off but definitely still leagues below today's rich, as just rewards for important achievements bringing significant benefits for others and/or the environment and/or solving crises the person in question obviously had no role in creating.
... And really believing in personal freedom as long as the ways in which one would use theirs doesn't violate the above principles or restrict the freedom of others more than not doing so would restrict theirs, which view creates conflicts both with conservatives and with progressives / modern "liberals" who push more and more to impose their rules and views on all at least as much as conservatives push theirs, said views tending to become similarly restrictive, the only difference being that they are rather opposite.
... Or, on another note, seeing relationships as the main priority when it comes to more personal matters and holding firm to the idea that the free choice should be whether to start a relationship, as once that happens, if different rules aren't clearly stated from the get go, it should be for life, though not exclusive unless that's also explicitly stated and agreed to from the get go, barring extreme circumstances like repeated abuse or involvement in serious illegal activities, and that if one's partner isn't guilty of such things it may well be less of a crime to kill them than to "just" break up with them if they still absolutely desire to stay together, and also that if someone can get over a breakup, they never really cared in the first place.
... And could probably come up with other things too. But, ya know, if you want to be at odds with everyone, I have plenty of experience :))
Always wondered why's that a question. I mean, if it's posed, it means it's assumed you can time travel, in which case why kill baby Hitler, who at that point is innocent, and leave the following decades as they are, with the same conditions that are likely to let history straighten itself out and let those conditions push someone else in his place anyway? Shouldn't you be doing something about those conditions that led to someone like him being in charge, and his actions being acceptable, if not even desirable, for many? Or, if all you can do is a pinpoint action, at least eliminate him when he becomes crucial to the ensuing disaster, and therefore both guilty of it and much harder to replace?

There is already a force that has those attributes - Pride.
Pride can make people do things like puppets on strings, and it can go against everything that person believes. The best thing about it is, people think they are making their own choices! mwwaahhh

Well, i noticed, too, that there seems to be a bit of forced interactions. There are some cultures that are most certainly incompatible to the degree of peaceful interactions. That's not to say that the cultures can't change, but until that happens it's best to keep them separated. Islamic and Hindu culture, for example, is very, very incompatible. Japanese and American culture is compatible to a degree, but americans are likely to become violent in response to certain parts of it. In particular with these examples i'm referring to unyielding characteristics. The differences between the two have to be understood for peaceful interactions, whenever such is even possible.
The problem is, that phrase is way, way too vague.
That's reasonable, but on the other hand you're the one we know for sure would be capable of it, in this scenario. Is it better for 1 person to have it and the desire, or for the whole world to have the desire, but not capability?

There's also this consideration:
* If I'm the one with the desire and capability, then chances I probably wouldn't use it to commit grave evils (like mass genocide).
* If everyone else has the desire but not the capability, then chances are at least one would find a way to get the power needed to commit genocide, and everyone except me would not have a problem with that (and I would choose not to intervene with my power due to lack of desire). Remember, this sort of thing happened in the Germany in the 1930s, and it could happen again (and almost certainly has in other parts of the world).

The irony being, saying "yes" almost requires pride to begin with. Who's really manipulating who? Still, exploitation of pride usually requires knowing a bit more about someone. Also, i've met plenty who seem to have none at all.
It's not necessarily capitalist, but non-determinist. Fundamentally, if opportunity is equal, and there are differences in choices (free will), then there will inevitably be inequality of outcome.
Well, the question is, "what's your price?" And certainly it doesn't have to be monetary. You have the power to control people, but not change their beliefs. What are you going to do when mortality is approached? Are you truly incapable of grave evils? Let's be clear, Utopians commit atrocities in the name of the ends justifying the means: in other words, to achieve their utopia, all can be sacrificed. Would you honestly not reach for some utopian ideal, when you see yourself facing mortality with no legacy, yet you have desire to control others against their will?

i cant see how you wouldnt do anything with political flag+bio
yeah the same is happening in the usa atm like with coca-cola

Last time I checked, there wasn't anything inherently political about my flag or bio; the only reason one might think that is if one chooses to politicize things that shouldn't be considered political.

Oh look, it's a thinly veiled attempt to discuss politics on a vidya gaming forum.

I like it.

You call this veiled? No, i'm more interested in fundamentals here. If you look at the posters in this thread and compare their politics in other threads, you'll notice individuals who are normally in agreement on this topic would be at odds with each other in other topics, and vice versa.

What do you mean? Are you implying some sort of contradiction amongst certain political affinities?

What is this contradiction you refer to?

I see we still haven't learned that everything is political. Politics is about arguing for enforcing morality discussions with force of some kind. What's the difference between a political discussion about guns in games and a moral one: whether we're talking about whether or not it should or should not be legal. To that end, i find it untenable to say that anything is non-political. You and I would indeed be in agreement, however, on the validity of whether or not it should be ppolitical, however. That said, once it's in the arena, it has become so, and i think one being willing to say their beliefs in the face of danger (which is essentially what politics boils down to over time, especially these days) is something to honor, not deny.
I have people who are left and right who are in agreement in desiring tyranny if it means they get what they want, and i got people on both sides who are very hesitant to say the same. There's a reason why people have bfeen pushing for 2d and even 3d or n-dimensional political compasses.